Daniela Elsner / Jörg-U. Keßler ( E ds.) Bilingual Education in Primary School Aspects of Immersion, CLIL, and Bilingual Modules Daniela Elsner / Jörg-U. Keßler (Eds.) Bilingual Education in Primary School Aspects of Immersion, CLIL , and Bilingual Modules Daniela Elsner is professor for TEFL methodology and research at the University of Frankfurt am Main. Jörg-U. Keßler is professor of English and Applied Linguistics at Ludwigsburg University of Education. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http: / / dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. © 2013 ∙ Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG Dischingerweg 5 ∙ D-72070 Tübingen Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Gedruckt auf chlorfrei gebleichtem und säurefreiem Werkdruckpapier. Internet: http: / / www.narr-studienbuecher.de E-Mail: info@narr.de Satz: typoscript GmbH, Walddorfhäslach Printed in the EU ISSN 0941-8105 ISBN 978-3-8233-6782-6 Inhaltsverzeichnis Chapter 1 Aspects of Immersion, CLIL, and Bilingual Modules: Bilingual Education in Primary School (Daniela Elsner & Jörg-U. Keßler) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Clearing the ground - or what is bilingual education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Research on bilingual education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 Aims of this book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 Structure of the book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 Chapter overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Chapter 2 Some Thoughts on Bilingualism (Gregory Poarch) . . . . . . 7 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 Definitions of bilingualism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 Consequences of bilingualism on language development . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4 Consequences of bilingualism on cognitive development . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5 Consequences of immersion on language and cognitive development 13 6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Chapter 3 Bilingual Approaches to Foreign Language Education in Primary School (Daniela Elsner & Jörg-U. Keßler) . . . . . 16 1 Forms of bilingual education from kindergarten to grammar school ( “ Gymnasium ” ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2 Immersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3 CLIL: Bilingual education careers - bilingual curricular instruction . . . 19 4 Bilingual modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5 Bilingual added value - or which opportunities does bilingual learning contain for foreign language development? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6 Development of subject-specific competences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7 Some thoughts about bilingual learning in regular primary schools . . 24 8 Uncertainties and limitations of bilingual learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Chapter 4 Bilingual Education: Chances and Challenges (Thorsten Piske) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2 Research evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.1 Immersion students ’ L2 development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.2 Immersion students ’ L1 development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.3 Immersion students ’ development of subject knowledge . . . . . . . . 37 3 Conclusions and research still required in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Chapter 5 Bilingual Education - Subject Matter(s) (Jörg-U. Keßler & Daniela Elsner) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Chapter 5.1 Natural Science (Natasha Aristov & Helga Haudeck) . . . . 42 1 Science at primary grade level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2 Science in German primary schools (Baden-Württemberg) . . . . . . . . . . 44 3 Why include science in bilingual classrooms? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4 Methodology of science-based CLIL lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5 Lesson structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 6 Children ’ s literature and experiments (CHILITEX) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Chapter 5.2 Mathematics (Britta Viebrock) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 2 Research evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3 Competence areas and mathematical literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4 Topics, terms and language structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 5 Resources for tasks and materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Chapter 5.3 CLIL - Teaching the Art: Physical Education, Art, Music (Katja Heim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 2 Physical Education (P. E.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3 Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4 Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 5 Cross-curricular bilingual project: stage production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Chapter 6 Assessment in Bilingual Classrooms (Ute Massler & Daniel Stotz) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 1 Specific situation of CLIL assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 2 Assessment aims and formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3 Principles for CLIL assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4 Differentiating between assessing skills and content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 5 Evaluating pupils ’ performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Chapter 7 On the Road to Nowhere? The Transition Problem of Bilingual Teaching Programmes (Kristin Kersten & Andreas Rohde) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 2 From the parental home to preschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 VI Inhaltsverzeichnis 3 From preschool to primary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 4 From primary to secondary level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 5 The survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Annex: Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Service Section Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” (Henriette Dausend) . . . . . . . . 131 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Inhaltsverzeichnis VII Chapter 1 Aspects of Immersion, CLIL, and Bilingual Modules: Bilingual Education in Primary School Daniela Elsner & Jörg-U. Keßler The European dimension of bilingual education in primary school becomes evident if one considers the efforts taken both by the European Union as well as many scholars and teachers throughout Europe to extend an increasing amount of bilingual teaching and learning environments for their learners. By doing so, a core philosophy of the European Union is addressed: Each citizen of the EU ought to be able to functionally use her/ his mother tongue and at least two more of the languages to be found within the European Union (cf. http: / / www. euractiv.com/ culture/ language-use-eu-linksdossier-188332, last accessed 2 October 2012). Starting early, at kindergarten or primary school level with learning foreign languages is one way of dealing with this philosophy. Besides various early start programmes for foreign language learning in the membering states of the EU, bilingual education has become a popular and powerful way of supporting instructed language acquisition all over the world. 1 Clearing the ground - or what is bilingual education? The term “ bilingual ” indicates that in such educational frameworks, teaching and learning takes place in two languages. The question about how much time needs to be spent in each of the languages in order for a programme to be considered as “ bilingual ” , has been answered in various ways. While Martin (2012: 36) suggests that in bilingual programmes, the two languages are used to the same extent, Lotherington (2004: 695 f.) in her definition of bilingual education as “ education in which two languages are used instructionally ” does not clearly depict the amount of time spent in each of the languages, even though she also argues for a rather balanced amount of each of the languages being used in class. For this book we refer to the definition given by Hamers and Blanc (2000: 321) using “ bilingual education ” as a cover term for “ any system of school education in which, at a given moment in time and for a varying amount of time simultaneously or consecutively, instruction is planned and given in at least two languages ” . Moreover, bilingual education should also be dialogical, meaning that both, teachers and learners use two or more languages in the classroom for communicative purposes. However, the quantity of productive language in each of the languages used by the pupils may differ from the quantity of language reception, which is accordingly the quantity of language input in each of the languages offered by the teacher. European dimension instruction in at least two languages Yet, the field of “ bilingual education ” is confronted with a Babylonian confusion when it comes to ‘ labels ‘ of various approaches to and concepts of bilingual learning and teaching (cf. Keßler & Schlemminger forthc.). The most far reaching approach to bilingual education is the immersion approach that has its modern origins in St. Lambert, Quebec and dates back to the 1960 s (cf. Swain & Lapkin 1982, Genesee 1987, Wesche 2002). In immersion settings most of the subjects (at least more than 50 %) are taught in the target language in order to cater for a real ‘ language bath ‘ as the term immersion suggests. The idea behind these programmes was and still is to “ immerse ” majority language speakers completely in another language, while the development of the first language is constantly supported (e. g. Martin 2012: 38). Good examples are French immersion programmes in Canada, or Swedish immersion programmes in Finland. CLIL has become increasingly more popular throughout Europe both in primary as well as in secondary school education (cf. Coyle et al. 2010, Marsh & Meyer 2012, Egger & Lechner 2012). In this framework, up to 50 % of the subjects are taught in the target language, while the other half is taught in the medium of the first language. Parallel to this, foreign language lessons are offered to the pupils, and very often additional hours of foreign language instruction precede the CLIL programmes. In Germany, both approaches are offered by schools that label themselves to be immersive or bilingual schools. Regular schools that only provide mainstream foreign language education with 2 - 5 hours weekly and monolingual L1 instruction in the non-language subjects do not match the criteria characterising bilingual education frameworks. Very often these schools cannot afford content-based lessons in the foreign language to their learners simply due to practical and organisational reasons. For those schools, bilingual modules offer a brilliant opportunity to subject-specific instruction in two languages. Bilingual modules do not only cater for an increasing amount of foreign language input, in addition they “ open up new angles on the subject matter and the integration of new topics ” (Abendroth-Timmer 2007: 1). Bilingual modules are small units illuminating one particular topic from various points of view. These modules are used at individual stages in one or more chosen non-language subjects. All of the texts, exercises, or other material is offered in at least two languages. 2 Research on bilingual education When it comes to the question of “ how effective ” the different types of bilingual education are in terms of linguistic and subject-specific competences ’ development one may find valuable answers in the meanwhile large pool of research outcomes arisen from studies that have been conducted in Canadian, American, European, and especially in German education contexts. Many of them still focus on Immersion and/ or CLIL at secondary school level (for detailed information see Breidbach & Viebrock 2012; Coyle et al. 2010). However, first research results about the experiences with different approaches to bilingual learning and teaching at German primary schools have been published (e. g. Burmeister immersion CLIL bilingual modules 2 Chapter 1 2006, Piske 2006, Massler & Burmeister 2010, Elsner & Keßler 2011 and 2012, Massler 2012, Bechler forthc.). Egger & Lechner (2012) recently edited a book that covers a large-scale report by a number of European scholars on “ Primary CLIL around Europe ” . This project was funded by the European Union and combines research efforts and material development for bilingual education by colleagues from Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, the UK and others. Their book shows the growing importance of bilingual education throughout Europe also for young language learners. Though the nations of the European Union are rather diverse both in their cultures as well as in their education systems there seems to be a common core of (research) questions related to bilingual learning. The most pending questions about bilingual education at primary level, in addition to the more general question stated above, deal with the following aspects: What would be the benefit of bilingual education for content matter? How can bilingual education cater for the needs of the specific subject content rather than just serve as additional language input? Which approach(es) to bilingual education are most promising in primary school settings? How can bilingual content classes and subject matter be evaluated and assessed? Do primary teachers (both modern language teachers as well as content teachers) need a specific additional qualification to teach bilingually? Could bilingual education enhance both language and content learning or would it rather water down one of those or even both areas? Are bilingual educational settings appropriate for learners with migration backgrounds or would such settings rather impede their learning of the majority language? 3 Aims of this book This book takes many of the questions listed above as its point of departure. Taking into account the European dimension it focuses particularly on the situation of bilingual education in primary schools in Germany. With the aim to inform inservice teachers working in regular primary schools, teacher trainers and trainees as well as university students and interested parents about the goals, chances and difficulties that bilingual education holds. We also hope that teachers already practising in bilingual settings, be they immersion or CLIL, will read this book, regarding it as a source of professional development. We especially hope that it will inspire teachers and those on their way to become teachers in traditional foreign language classrooms to consider the integration of bilingual modules in the near future. Even though the book focuses on ways of bilingual learning and teaching that are common and feasible in the German education context, it combines results of research studies, literature reviews and best practice examples of bilingual education from all across Europe and beyond. It is therefore also suitable for Primary CLIL around Europe Aspects of Immersion, CLIL, and Bilingual Modules 3 university and in-service teacher training in other countries. By writing this book in English, we wanted to take care of readers from a non-German context. Additionally, as lectures and seminars in modern language departments of all universities in Germany are conducted in the English language this book can easily be used in tertiary education. 4 Structure of the book Each chapter starts with a short abstract illustrating the major aims and aspects of it. This is followed by some preparation tasks, requesting the reader to reflect about his or her pre-existing knowledge and experiences as well as individual subjective theories on the specific topic discussed in the chapter. The structure of each chapter is briefly explained in a short paragraph, following the preparatory tasks, which is meant to serve as a helpful tool for clarifying and structuring readers ’ expectations and information desire while reading the chapter. This is followed by the Review-Research-Reflect section, inviting the reader to summarize and consolidate newly gained knowledge, do additional research and reflect about further topic-related issues. Suggestions for further reading are provided at the end of each chapter. Literature and websites referred to in the chapters can be found in the complete bibliography at the end of the book prior to an index containing relevant terms from the field of bilingual teaching and learning. 5 Chapter overview In chapter two Gregory Poarch provides an overview of relevant bilingualism research in the domains of bilingual first language development and early second language acquisition. Different definitions and forms of bilingualism are illuminated, including their effects on cognitive abilities. The chapter gives a brief introduction to what can be expected from bilingual education depending on the contexts and environments of second language acquisition. It highlights the importance of the modulating factors in this domain, namely age of acquisition and quality and quantity of exposure and input. In chapter three Daniela Elsner and Jörg-U. Keßler illustrate the opportunities, objectives, and limits of bilingual teaching and learning at primary level. The chapter starts with an overview of different forms of bilingual education from kindergarten to grammar school. Important characteristics of immersion, CLIL, and bilingual modules are illustrated. Alternative approaches to classroom organisation in bilingual settings, e. g. the integration of CLIL programmes at primary schools are discussed. In chapter four Thorsten Piske explores the results of research, examining the effectiveness of bilingual programmes that have been implemented in German elementary schools so far. The major focus is on studies that have examined bilingual students ’ L1 and L2 development as well as their achievements in subjects such as mathematics. The goal of the chapter is to summarise research 4 Chapter 1 findings that allow for more concrete answers to the question whether and to what extent different groups of learners do indeed benefit from bilingual programmes. Chapter five is divided into three sub-chapters, all of them illustrating how the learning of two languages can be integrated into different subjects. Sub-chapter one focuses on ways of bilingual teaching and learning in primary school science classes. Natasha Aristov and Helga Haudeck remind readers of some major objectives of science education at primary level. Arguments for combining science lessons with foreign language pedagogy are provided. The authors spell out how well children ’ s literature can be used to scaffold a science lesson by guiding pupils ’ attention to a topic and providing an emotional connection to a science theme related to a story. In the second sub-chapter Britta Viebrock illustrates why mathematics should be included in a bilingual approach in primary education. Her sub-chapter contains a brief overview of relevant research results from immersion-type and CLIL mathematics as well as theoretical considerations on the nature of mathematics, mathematical literacy and the role of language in the mathematics classroom. Turning more practical, an explanation of the competence areas and topical fields aspired in a bilingual and competence-based approach to teaching and learning mathematics is provided. This includes a comprehensive collection of specific vocabulary and technical terminology as well as resources of ideas for teaching and sample material. The third sub-chapter, written by Katja Heim, discusses the benefits of teaching Sports (P. E.), Art, and Music bilingually. It focuses on aspects of classroom management and on authentic language use in the respective subjects. Sample curricula from the German context provide an insight into possible applications of bilingual teaching and learning. Her chapter ends with a project idea that combines elements of the three aesthetic subjects. Chapter six focuses on questions of assessment in bilingual classrooms. Ute Massler and Daniel Stotz first explain why assessment in general is relevant and important, but also specifically problematic in bilingual education. The authors describe important principles and forms of assessment and how they apply in CLIL assessment. A list of assessment guidelines specific for CLIL assessment is provided. Based on a series of concrete assessment tasks readers will learn how to decide whether an assessment task actually assesses content or language or both. Suggestions for good evaluation criteria are made and evaluation sheets for CLIL assessment are given. In chapter seven Kristin Kersten and Andreas Rohde explore the challenges of acquiring English across different institutions from preschool to secondary school with regard to varying forms of language education. The authors suggest that content-based bilingual programmes with no specific language curricula allow for a smoother transition across institutions than language-course-oriented approaches. Moreover, it is argued that programmes with a form of regulation within their transition processes encounter fewer problems than programmes without regulated transition. This is supported by the results of a survey that was conducted across more than 100 preschools, primary and secondary schools which the authors describe in detail in the second part of this final chapter. Aspects of Immersion, CLIL, and Bilingual Modules 5 The book is completed by a service section. This service section includes a glossary explaining key terms in the area of bilingual education, a detailed sample bilingual module on the topic “ My House - Our Town ” , developed by Henriette Dausend. The module is accompanied by a fully spelled out lesson plan in the German language for quick practical usage. A full bibliography and an index supporting quick browsing through the volume when looking for specific and detailed information on selected areas of bilingual education at primary school level close the service section. Additional material such as suggestions for lesson plans, possible answers to our R-R-R sections ’ tasks, and ideas for the use of this book in university seminars can be found on the following website: www.bilingual-education.narr-studienbuecher.de. Further reading suggestions: Breidbach, S. & Viebrock, B. (2012), CLIL in Germany: Results from Recent Research in a Contested Field of Education. International CLIL Research Journal 1 (4), 1 - 14. Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010), CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Egger, G. & Lechner, C. (eds.) (2012), Primary CLIL Around Europe. Learning in Two Languages in Primary Education. Marburg: Tectum Verlag. Lotherington, H. (2004), Bilingual Education. In: Davies, A. & Elder, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 695 - 718. Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (eds.) (2012), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence - Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstätt: Eichstätt Academy Press. Martin, B. (2012), Coloured Language: Identity Perception of Children in Bilingual Programmes. Language Awareness 21 (1 - 2), 33 - 56. 6 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Some Thoughts on Bilingualism Gregory Poarch In this chapter, you will be introduced to how bilingualism is defined and to the consequences of bilingualism on both language development and cognitive development. The chapter offers an overview of relevant bilingualism research in the domains of bilingual first language development and early second language acquisition as well as research on the effects of bilingualism on cognitive abilities. Furthermore, the consequences of immersion education on language and cognitive development are briefly covered. Pre-reading activities 1. When do you call someone a bilingual? Which aspects guide you in this decision? Do you believe one needs to be equally proficient in both languages to be considered a bilingual? 2. Consider bilingual families you know personally or have heard of from friends. Which language strategies do these families employ and how successful are they in maintaining their bilingualism? Do children in bilingual families develop their languages similarly to those in monolingual families or are there distinct differences? 3. What are the factors that influence second language acquisition (SLA)? Which of these do you believe have more or less importance and impact on the outcome of SLA? Structure of this chapter This chapter is divided into four sections. In the first section, we take a closer look at definitions of bilingualism. Then various forms of language acquisition are contrasted, with a more detailed look at bilingual first language acquisition. The second section focuses on the possible consequences of bilingualism on language development. This is followed by section 3 with a brief look at the consequences of bilingualism on cognitive development and the neurolinguistic evidence on effects on the language networks in the brain. The final section gives a brief overview of the consequences of immersion on language and cognitive development and what can be expected depending on the contexts and environments of second language acquisition and the modulating factors in this domain, namely age of acquisition and quality and quantity of exposure and input. The chapter ends with references for further reading and a number of study questions. 1 Introduction Roughly over half of the world ’ s population is bilingual or multilingual (Gardner- Chloros, 2009). Even those individuals who were raised in a monolingual environment usually have the opportunity to get to know and learn other languages, be it through lessons at school or international travel. Thus, nowadays more and more individuals are in the process of becoming bilingual (Bathia & Ritchie 2004). Nevertheless, bilingualism is regarded by some as departing from the norm and as an issue that raises questions such as: Does growing up with two languages confuse the child? Does it affect its intellectual development? Does the second language negatively affect the first? At the same time, such a view also begs the question as to why so many try to acquire a second language in the first place if it may have detrimental effects. In the following, an attempt is made to find answers to these questions by highlighting findings from research on the consequences of bilingualism. 2 Definitions of bilingualism Defining bilingualism has been and will remain a complex task. Depending on your personal experiences with multiple languages and speakers of multiple languages, your attitude towards bilingualism, your opinion as to what constitutes bilingualism, and possibly your area of research, your definition of bilingualism is likely to vary considerably. Altarriba and Heredia, for example, suggest that “ an individual is as bilingual as is demanded by a particular task or context ” (2008: 3). Keeping in mind that being proficient in any language pertains to performance in at least four skills, namely understanding, speaking, reading, and writing, along with discourse competence that allows speakers to adjust these skills to the pragmatic needs in a given context, it should be obvious that various linguistic yardsticks may be used to assess an individual ’ s proficiency. Take for example a person who speaks German and English fluently but cannot write in English very proficiently. Some would maintain that this is a bilingual (speaker), whereas others would designate such a person as a German second language learner of English, simply because this individual cannot perform equally fluently in all language skills in both languages. Therefore, irrespective of any definition, it may be useful to keep in mind what a speaker can do in his or her languages and how this may change over time depending on a multitude of factors. Having focused on general language abilities so far, other distinctions of bilingualism draw on at which age(s) the languages were learnt, in which domains the language are learnt and used, and how balanced the languages are, to name just a few. 8 Chapter 2 Age of acquisition: Simultaneous versus sequential bilingualism When children have input in and grow up with two languages from birth simultaneously, one speaks of bilingual first language acquisition (BFLA). In contrast, there is early second language acquisition (ESLA), in which the second language is learnt after the age of approximately three, and, naturally, monolingual first language acquisition (MFLA; De Houwer 2009, see also Baker 2011). Generally, there is little agreement in the literature concerning a distinct time threshold or boundary before which children need to have had input in the second language for “ ultimate attainment ” (incidentally also a concept that one would need to define; see Meisel 2010, for a discussion). One would, however, assume that the earlier a child has input in a second language, the more time it has to develop and hone this language. Domains of language input and usage There are prototypical language environments for BFLA and ESLA children, although any combination is possible: the typical BFLA child learns its languages in the same environment (e. g., two home languages, one of which is also the language spoken outside the home), while the typical ESLA child learns its languages in two distinct environments (e. g., home vs. school). These environments may have repercussions as to the quality and quantity of language exposure. Keep in mind also that these language environments may potentially offer more than two languages for the child to acquire (e. g., Dewaele 2000, Hoffmann 2001), rendering these children multilinguals (e. g., two home languages that differ from the school language). 3 Consequences of bilingualism on language development When language development in bilingual children is discussed, laypersons will often comment on particularly three issues: an alleged delay in language development, the mixing of languages (as a possible sign of confusion), and the imbalance in proficiencies leading bilinguals to be unable to perform equally well in each language. Interestingly, bilingual children and monolingual children reach the so-called milestones in language acquisition at approximately the same time (Genesee 2003). There is little evidence to suggest that bilingual children differ from monolinguals in the trajectory of, for example, first word utterances, two-word constructions, and more complex sentence constructions in either of their languages. There is variation as to when these language acquisition milestones are reached, but this variation is generally the same for monolinguals and bilinguals and by the age of five, all children will be able to speak rather well. Furthermore, bilinguals have been shown to have a smaller vocabulary in each language than comparable monolinguals. Bialystok et al. (2009) point out that, conversely, the overall combined vocabulary may be even larger in bilinguals, only that this vocabulary is distributed over two languages. There is also evidence suggesting that bilinguals are slower in retrieving bilingual first language acquisition early second language acquisition language exposure language acquisition milestones Some Thoughts on Bilingualism 9 words from their mental lexicon than monolinguals, which is assumed to be driven by cross-language activation and the subsequent need to choose between alternatives from two languages and not just one language (Poarch & van Hell 2012 a). However, the implications of this for everyday language usage are negligible in that this difference between monolingual and bilingual word retrieval pertains to magnitudes of around 100 milliseconds. Furthermore, research has shown that, from the start, bilingual children develop two autonomous language systems (Genesee 1989) that interact, for example, phonologically and syntactically, and that children make language choices depending on interlocutor and situation. Thus, even before the age of two, bilingual children are able to use their two languages in accordance to the context (Deuchar & Quay 2000). This contrasts earlier views that assumed that bilingual children first develop one fused system that needs to be separated later on (Volterra & Taeschner 1978). Concerning the mixing of languages, this so-called code-switching and code-mixing can very well be a conscious choice, given that children do not always learn the word for each new concept in both languages. A child may then simply use a word from the other language to express a specific thought. Critically, this strategy is also a daily occurrence in adult language usage, both in bilinguals and second language learners. Also, the fact that code-switching follows specific rules and is also employed more or less depending on interlocutor is an indication that the child is using its full linguistic resources in discourse (Myers-Scotton 2002). Finally, depending on the quantity and quality of input, the length of exposure, and the domains and contexts in which both languages are used primarily, most bilinguals will be more proficient in one language than the other, in other words they will have a dominant and a non-dominant language. The fully balanced bilingual, who is able to perform equally well in all skills in both languages and in all domains of usage, is a rare phenomenon (Fishman 1972). Having said that, while most bilinguals are more dominant in one of their languages, this language dominance is subject to change over time and will be in a constant flux, depending on usage patterns and quantity and quality of language practice. 4 Consequences of bilingualism on cognitive development Various studies have been conducted in the past to explore the effects of bilingualism on speakers ’ cognitive development. It is of particular interest whether continuously dealing with two languages has any impact on non-linguistic domains. As such, the performance of bilingual and monolingual children is usually contrasted in various measures of cognition and cognitive functions. Cognition generally refers to all activities concerned with thinking and when information is processed in the human brain. These cognitive processes are, for example, perceiving, observing, paying attention to something specific, and learning, but also anticipating, planning, deciding, and executing specific actions (Robinson-Riegler & Robinson-Riegler 2011). codeswitching code-mixing language dominance non-linguistic domains 10 Chapter 2 Intelligence and divergent and creative thinking In an early study by Peal & Lambert (1962), 10-year-old balanced bilingual children outperformed monolingual children in tasks measuring intelligence that called for, amongst others, mental manipulation and reorganization of visual structures. It was made sure that the two groups were matched both on age and socio-economic class (a factor known to have a large influence on general child development). The results led the authors to conclude that bilingualism provided greater mental flexibility, a higher aptitude for abstract and divergent thinking, and superiority in the formation of concepts. One way to tap into divergent thinking is by asking individuals how many uses they can think of for a specific tool or object. The number of acceptable answers indicates the fluency score, while the number of categories indicate the flexibility score. Bilinguals have been found to be superior to monolinguals in various measures of divergent thinking (Laurén 1991, Ricciardelli 1992), which is attributed to the fact that bilinguals have multiple words for one object and an enhanced variety of associations and lexical alternatives (Kharkhurin 2007). Continuously using two languages and in turn dealing with the connected cross-language interaction may also have an effect on bilinguals ’ ability to extract novel and unique ideas as well as on the capacity to violate standard sets of category properties (Kharkhurin 2009). Metalinguistic awareness Metalinguistic awareness refers to the ability to reflect on the use of language and on its systematic elements as well as on the separate natures of words and their referents. Early research by Ben-Zeev (1977) used the Symbol Substitution Test in which one word in a sentence is substituted by another arbitrary word (e. g., the word “ banana ” replaces “ I ” in the sentence “ I am happy ” , making the sentence “ Banana am happy ” ). In this test, word meaning needs to be ignored as well as the ensuing interference this may cause in the sentence context to be able to perform the task correctly. Bilinguals accepted such sentences more readily and thus outperformed monolinguals in this task, which the author attributed to their experience with two language systems and the possibly differing construction rules. According to Bialystok (2001), bilingual children display more sensitivity in dealing with the ambiguity of names because they are less bound to words ’ specific meaning. This may also be beneficial in developing concepts of number and in processing the symbolic nature of number as bilingual children need to attend to two languages in various contexts. Finally, Galambos and Hakuta (1988) had various groups of Spanish-English bilinguals find errors in Spanish sentences. Particularly those bilinguals who were highly proficient in both languages showed higher levels of metalinguistic awareness. The authors concluded that the developmental boost in metalinguistic awareness is caused only above a certain proficiency threshold, which is in line with the threshold theory by Cummins (1976). This theory posits a bilingual competence threshold below which the positive advantages of bilingualism in the form of accelerated cognitive growth may not (fully) emerge. Finally, Bialystok, Peets, and Moreno (in press) examined mental flexibility lexical alternatives Symbol Substitution Test threshold theory Some Thoughts on Bilingualism 11 2 nd and 5 th grade English-speaking children in a French immersion school in Canada and compared these to children enrolled in regular English programmes. They found gradually emerging metalinguistic advantages for the immersed children over non-immersed monolingual children, particularly in tasks requiring more executive control. Cognitive control and selective attention Bilinguals who are exposed to two languages also need to control these languages depending on the interlocutor and possibly switch from one to the other and back in situations where this is called for. Take, for example, a bilingual Dutch-English girl whose mother speaks Dutch and whose father speaks English. The parents have chosen to follow the one person-one language strategy (OPOL), addressing their child in their respective native language. If the child now speaks Dutch with the mother and English with the father, it will have to repeatedly switch back and forth between the two languages. In doing so, the child needs to monitor this language choice and, after one is chosen fitting the context/ interlocutor, the other language needs to be inhibited (Inhibitory Control model by Green 1998). Through this the bilingual child is thought to be continuously training its executive control mechanism, which has been shown to lead to advantages in cognitive control over monolingual children (Bialystok et al. 2009, see also Bialystok & Barac 2012). Research has used a variety of cognitive control tasks to tap into inhibitory control and task monitoring. In the Embedded Figures Test, for example, participants are required to find simple visuals patterns that are concealed in larger complex figures. Bialystok (1992) found that bilingual children performed better than monolingual children, which she suggested “ might reflect their superior ability to focus on wanted information and ignore misleading information ” (Bialystok et al. 2009: 98). Selective attention and inhibition processes were also explored using the dimensional card sort task (DCCS), in which children need to sort cards that vary on two dimensions (e. g., shape and color). First, the cards have to be sorted according to one of the dimensions, after which there is a switch to sorting in the other. The difficulty lies in disregarding the rule set up initially to perform the second sorting. Again, bilingual children outperformed monolingual children, which was attributed to the constant need to inhibit the nontarget language during language usage (Bialystok & Martin 2004). Recent studies comparing monolingual children, early bilingual children, and early L2 immersion children have found advantages for bilinguals in tasks in which conflict needed to be resolved and selective attention was necessary (Carlson & Meltzoff 2008, Poarch & van Hell 2012b). Interestingly, the immersed group of children in either study did not differ significantly from the monolingual group, which is assumed to stem from the fact that the exposure to the second language (6 - 12 months) had not (yet) been sufficient for cognitive control advantages to emerge. Finally, cognitive benefits were also found by Kempert, Saalbach, and Hardy (2011) in Turkish-German unbalanced bilinguals with an immigrant background, whose L2 proficiency was significantly lower than their L1 proficiency. Using one personone language Embedded Figures Test dimensional card sort task 12 Chapter 2 mathematical problem solving tasks, the authors explored the impact of relative language proficiencies on problem solving and possible underlying executive control differences. According to the authors, their results indirectly support the notion that “ bilingualism has beneficial effects even for students who are not highly proficient in both languages and who are from a lower socio-economic background ” (Kempert et al. 2011: 557). Neurolinguistic evidence The neurolinguistic evidence concerning effects of bilingualism have above all focused on where the language functions in speakers ’ brains are mainly located and distributed and whether bilingualism changes brain matter in any way (see Marian 2008, for a brief overview). One heavily discussed topic in this domain is the lateralized brain distribution of language functions. For right-handed speakers, the left brain hemisphere is dominant for language processing (Paradis 2004, Vaid 2002). It has been shown that early bilinguals show more involvement of the right hemisphere during language processing, indicating that bilinguals may be less lateralized for language. Moreover, Kim, Relkin, Lee, and Hirsch (1997) found that, in early bilinguals, languages in Broca ’ s area (the brain area known to be most actively involved in language production) were localized in the identical regions, while the languages of late bilinguals were localized in more distinct regions. Replications of this research, however, have been neither conclusive nor have they corroborated the results obtained by Kim and colleagues (1997). Importantly, Baker (2011) points out that it is unclear what such findings mean for everyday thinking and performance. A recent surge of neurolinguistic studies in which both behavioral and electrophysiological data have been collected may offer useful insights into bilingual language processing. Wu and Thierry (2012), for example, explored covert language processing using electroencephalography (EEG) and found that the non-target language (i. e., the language not in use) is actively and involuntarily processed even in exclusively monolingual contexts. In a review of neurocognitive studies on bilinguals ’ first and second language processing, Indefrey (2006) found tentative evidence for more brain activation during L2 processing than in L1 processing particularly in late L2 learners with low L2 proficiency and low L2 exposure. In other words, processing the L2 required greater effort and larger brain resources than processing in L1. At the same time, the more L2 proficiency increases, the more the difference in activation decreases between L1 and L2 (Abutalebi & Green 2007). It seems, thus, that the influence of age of onset of L2 learning, relative L2 proficiency, and L2 exposure play a vital role in paving the way for any of the effects mentioned in this section to become evident. More importantly, what does this mean for the foreign language classroom and which conclusions may we draw for language immersion programmes and CLIL? 5 Consequences of immersion on language and cognitive development In recent years, the number of bilingual education programmes has been increasing in many countries. The main objectives are to offer students greater exposure to a Broca ’ s area bilingual education programmes Some Thoughts on Bilingualism 13 second language in more diverse contexts, which should prove advantageous for building proficiency in that language, and for students to profit from the positive cognitive consequences outlined above. These objectives are viewed by many as rather difficult to reach through traditional foreign language instruction at school, which in the past has been limited to sessions of two hours per week. The effectiveness of bilingual education has been researched and documented in a variety of studies (for reviews, see, e. g., Swain & Johnson 1997, Johnstone 2002), in which particularly the consequences of immersion for the native language and for cognitive development were explored (e. g., Hermanto et al. 2012). Regarding first language proficiency, Swain (1974) found that 12-year-old students who had attended early immersion reached the same level of first language proficiency or even outperformed age-matched students who had had regular foreign language classes. This was corroborated in a study by Zaunbauer & Möller (2007), which originally aimed at comparing mathematical skills in immersed and non-immersed children. Critically, both groups of children did not differ in the levels of literacy skills, which were also obtained for comparison. These results can be explained by assuming that academic skills in both languages are linked to a unitary underlying knowledge basis and is in line with Cummins ’ Interdependence Hypothesis (1991; see Verhoeven, 2006, for a recent review). The Interdependence Hypothesis posits a common underlying proficiency basis below two separate surface features of L1 and L2. Finally, in a recent study, Hermanto and colleagues (2012) attempted to trace the development of children becoming bilingual in an educational context. For this purpose, monolingual English-speaking children (age range = 7 to 11 years) enrolled in an intensive French immersion program were tested on their linguistic and metalinguistic abilities in English and French. The children performed consistently better in English (the home language) than French (the school language) on language measures, with English scores that were slightly above the population norm even after 3 years of purely French instruction. At the same time, French did not catch up to English as measured by the vocabulary and grammar tasks, although one may assume that continued exposure to L2 French in school will further improve the children ’ s linguistic skills. In contrast, their metalinguistic ability as measured by, for example, judging semantically anomalous sentences for their grammatical correctness in English and French, improved significantly over time, with the 11year-olds outperforming monolingual English children. Interestingly, these results conform to those obtained with bilingual children educated in English who have a non-English language at home (Barac & Bialystok 2012). For CLIL contexts, positive outcomes regarding cognitive abilities have also been documented (e. g., in the DEZIBEL study by Zydatiß 2007). In other words, it seems as though CLIL may evoke at least some of the positive aspects of bilingualism. This is supported by the concept of translanguaging (Garcia 2009), in which the use of two languages and moving from one to other and back in the classroom is encouraged. As such, the strict separation of languages is replaced by language practices that integrate multiple languages in an attempt to gain the advantages that result from dealing with more than one language on a daily basis. effectiveness of bilingual education Interdependence Hypothesis DEZIBEL study 14 Chapter 2 6 Summary In this chapter, it has become clear that children can profit substantially from being bilingual. Apart from developing two language systems instead of one, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that becoming bilingual also has positive consequences for children ’ s cognitive development. For these effects to emerge, however, sufficient proficiency in both languages needs to be gained, so as to enable these children to use both languages continuously. Furthermore, the development of second language proficiency in turn has been shown to be linked to onset or age of acquisition as well as the quality and quantity of second language exposure. From this follows that an early and more extensive start to second language exposure gives students more time and occasions to practice and enhance their language skills. Moreover, immersion settings allow students to continuously use their languages in meaningful contexts and not only to a very limited extent in the foreign language classroom. As such, bilingual immersion comes much closer to natural bilingual first language acquisition than traditional foreign language instruction ever can and should make it possible for students to profit at least partially from the advantages of bilingualism. Review - Reflect - Research 1. Reassess your answers in the pre-reading activities. Have they been corroborated by the contents of this chapter? Has your definition of bilingualism changed considerably? 2. Browse the chapter and find 5 issues pertaining to the possible cognitive advantages of bilingualism. How are they explored and explained in research? 3. What are the differences between bilingual first language acquisition and traditional foreign language instruction in the classroom? How can language instruction profit from knowledge on BFLA? 4. Which effects do immersion instruction and CLIL programmes have on the development of the student ’ s native language? How are these effects explained by researchers in the field? Further reading suggestions Baker, C. (2011), Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (5 th ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Garcia, O. (2009), Bilingual Education in the 21 st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Kroll, J. F., & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.) (2005), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press. Some Thoughts on Bilingualism 15 Chapter 3 Bilingual Approaches to Foreign Language Education in Primary School Daniela Elsner & Jörg-U. Keßler The interest in bilingual learning and teaching has increased significantly over the last 10 years; this is not only indicated by the enhanced number of scientific and informative publications on the topic but also by the fact that more and more kindergartens and schools offer bilingual learning programmes. The term “ bilingual ” implies the use of at least two languages as medium of instruction in school subjects such as biology, history, geography, physical education, art lessons, etc. or in everyday kindergarten or school life. This chapter illustrates the opportunities and limits of bilingual education and reflects about different aspects concerning the integration of bilingual programmes at primary schools. Pre-reading activities 1. Which different approaches to bilingual learning have you heard of? 2. Have you ever taught in a bilingual classroom yourself? Which challenges did you meet or would you expect to meet in such settings? 3. Which advantages of bilingual teaching can you think of? 4. Can you think of any disadvantages? Structure of the chapter The chapter starts with an overview of different forms of bilingual education from kindergarten to grammar school. Important characteristics of immersion, CLIL, and bilingual modules will be illustrated. In a second step the aims and opportunities of bilingual teaching programmes will be explained. The last part of the chapter describes possible ways and limitations of bilingual learning in regular primary schools. 1 Forms of bilingual education from kindergarten to grammar school ( “ Gymnasium ” ) Bilingual learning can take place in various ways; meanwhile, there is a variety of concepts from which educational institutions can choose depending on their objectives and possibilities. Despite their varying forms all concepts have one thing forms of bilingual learning in common - they all intend to significantly increase the learner ’ s contact time with the target language (usually English or French) in an attempt to foster the foreign language development of the learner (cf. Keßler 2010: 8 f.). Another common feature of all competing approaches to bilingual instruction, is the focus on content. Throughout the history of language teaching the notion of content has been interpreted quite differently. Table one illustrates how content has been defined by various approaches to the foreign language classroom: Teaching Approach Definition of “ content ” Grammar Translation grammatical structures of the target language Audio Lingual grammatical structures, vocabulary, sound patterns Natural Approach language use for problem solving Communicative Language Teaching communicative purpose for which the learner uses the target language Immersion/ Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) subject matter of the (non-language) subject taught in the target language Table 1: Definition of content in various teaching approaches (adapted from Snow 2001, quoted from Keßler & Plesser 2011: 174) In this chapter, as throughout this whole book we interpret content in line with the definition suggested by Snow (2001) who refers to Immersion and CLIL as “ subject matters of the (non-language) subject taught in the target language ” . In the following sections we will briefly discuss the main approaches to instructed bilingual learning, namely Immersion, CLIL and Bilingual Modules. 2 Immersion The most intense contact with the target language is made possible through immersion (cf. Wesche 2002). Fred Genesee defines immersion as “ a form of bilingual education in which students who speak the language of the majority of the population receive part of their instruction through the medium of a second language and part through their first language. ” (Genesee 1987: 1). The term immersion stems from the verb “ to immerse ” , a synonym for to “ plunge into something ” , thus, in our case it literally means “ to plunge into languages ” . While “ total immersion ” means that the whole curriculum is taught in a second or foreign language, “ partial immersion ” means that only certain subjects or a choice of aspects of the curriculum are taught in a second or foreign language. We speak of “ early immersion ” when children learn in an immersion setting from the beginning of formal education (kindergarten level) and of “ late immersion ” when the foreign or second language is learned in such contexts at a later stage (eg. year 3 and 4 at primary level and up) (cf. Coyle et al. 2010). Immersion is probably one of the oldest approaches to teach and learn languages. Already the ancient Roman and Greek scholars were in favour of immersion total vs. partial immersion early vs. late immersion Bilingual Approaches to Foreign Language Education in Primary School 17 this very intense way of language learning. However, structured bilingual programmes were firstly implemented in education contexts in Canada in the 1960 s (cf. Lambert & Tucker 1972, Wode et al. 1999), both in areas where French is the dominant language of the community or where English is predominantly spoken. Their goal was and still is the promotion of national policies of bilingualism (cf. Genesee 2008: 4). In Europe, immersion programmes were firstly implemented in Skandinavian countries, in France and in Spain and either aimed at the promotion of national, regional, heritage, indiginous languages, or the promotion of important world and foreign languages (cf. ibid). Even though, the specific goals concerning the language to be learned in these respective programmes differ, all of them share the overall goal of bilingual proficiency (ibid). In Germany, Henning Wode (1995) can be seen as the pioneer of immersion education at kindergarten and primary school, aiming at the promotion of English as one modern foreign language. Today the association “ Verein zur Förderung von Mehrsprachigkeit in Kindergarten und Schulen ” (FMKS at www.fmks.de) identifies 680 kindergartens in Germany, which are operating according to the immersive approach. In addition to German, pedagogical staff use another language (mostly English) on a native-like language level in at least 50 per cent of their daily communication with children in these institutions (cf. Lommel 2009). And even though learners mostly only experience the foreign language receptively, national and international studies have shown that this method achieves extremely positive results with regard to foreign language development (e. g. Burmeister 2006, Piske 2006, Wode 2009, Kersten et al. 2010). The degree of learning success is dependent on a number of factors - as with all other language learning programmes - such as the intensity of contact with the foreign language (the more contact with the foreign language the sooner it can be acquired), the time of start (in case of immersion - the sooner the better), linguistic competences of the pedagogical staff, the form of supervision respectively the learning programme (is the development of foreign-language literacy supported, e. g. by guided reading of picture books, singing songs, and practising rhymes, or are children rather playing on their own all day long? ), the continuity of the programme (is the intense contact with the target language maintained after kindergarten? ) and, of course, the learner him-/ herself with all his/ her cognitive and emotional potentials. Despite the understanding that immersion is the most successful form of institutional foreign language learning, there are hardly any primary schools working according to this concept so far (cf. Piske & Burmeister 2008, Kersten et al. 2009). The few immersion-led primary schools including the Claus-Rixen Primary School in Altenholz/ Kiel (e. g. Burmeister 2006, Piske 2006, Piske & Burmeister 2008), the German-Italian primary school in Wolfsburg, the public Europaschule in Berlin, the Phorms Primary School in Frankfurt/ Main, or the Swiss International Schools in Friedrichshafen, Ingolstadt, Stuttgart-Fellbach and Regensburg teach all subjects in a foreign language (with the exception of German) from year 1 to 4. Some of them even offer a reception phase as part of their bilingual programme preceeding year 1. factors of success immersionled primary schools 18 Chapter 3 One might wonder as to how it is possible to teach content matter in immersion settings from grade 1 or even earlier when learners have not yet had input in the target language before. Piske & Burmeister (2008) explain how it works: In den ersten Schultagen werden die Kinder [. . .] an die Unterrichtssprache gewöhnt. Dies geschieht am einfachsten durch motivationsfördernde Aktivitäten, wie sie hinlänglich aus herkömmlichem Frühbeginn bekannt sind: Reime, Lieder, Spiele und viele Total Physical Response-Übungen [. . .] Zudem bilden feste Routinen im Unterrichtsablauf, wie z. B. ein täglicher Morgenkreis mit immer wiederkehrenden Begrüßungsritualen, ein hilfreiches Gerüst, das dem Schulalltag eine Struktur gibt und - was die Zielsprache betrifft - einen hohen Wiedererkennungswert für die Schülerinnen und Schüler hat. [. . .] Die Schülerinnen und Schüler können vom ersten Tag an im Chor kleine englischsprachige Reime mitsprechen und Lieder mitsingen. Sehr schnell folgen dann einzelne Vokabeln und formelhafte Phrasen (z. B. zur Begrüßung oder zum Abschied), die die Kinder nachsprechen und situationsadäquat produzieren können (Burmeister & Pasternak 2004). [. . .] Die Zielsprache wird zunächst ausschließlich handlungsbegleitend und in einem den Lernenden unmittelbar ersichtlichen Kontext, d. h. kontextualisiert, verwendet (Burmeister 2007). Dabei ist schauspielerisches Talent auf Seiten der Lehrkraft von großem Nutzen. Die Präsentation bzw. Interaktion muss selbsterklärend sein, so dass der Inhalt auch ohne Worte verständlich wäre. Die Kinder begreifen, worum es im Unterricht geht, wenn sie ganz genau zuschauen][emphasis in the original]] und aktiv mitmachen. Auch strukturell komplexere Sprache, z. B. Kommentare über etwas, können sie leicht verstehen, wenn die äußerungsbegleitende Gestik, Mimik und der Tonfall eindeutig sind, z. B. „ You know what I would like to eat now? A banana. Hmmm, yummy! I love bananas! ” (Piske & Burmeister (2008: 133 f.) Studies in this context have disclosed that learners of these schools can attain a significantly higher level in the foreign language than in conventional foreign language classrooms (e. g. Wesche 2002, Roos 2006, Piske & Burmeister 2008, Genesee 2008: 6). What is more, the participation in these classes does not require any particular talent of the learners but is suitable for children from all social classes and with any mother tongue (cf. Massler & Burmeister 2010; Schwab et al. 2012). 3 CLIL: Bilingual education careers - bilingual curricular instruction CLIL - Content and Language Integrated Learning is used as an umbrella term for many approaches to bilingual teaching. According to Legutke et al. (2009: 105) who translate the term CLIL with the German equivalent “ Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht ” CLIL can be anything between a short session of content-related teaching in a foreign language to teaching one or more subjects in the target language (cf. Legutke et al. 2009; also see Edelenbos et al. 2006). In Germany the first CLIL programmes were implemented in accordance with the Franco-German Treaty of 1963 along the German French boarder. Their aim was to promote international understanding between France and Germany after World War II (cf. Breidbach & Viebrock 2012: 5). Apart from the small number of primary schools that operate in accordance with the immersive concept, there is a substantial number of schools where contextualisation beginnings of CLIL in Germany Bilingual Approaches to Foreign Language Education in Primary School 19 foreign languages are used as the working language apart from the regular language classes (cf. www.fmks-online.de, accessed 10 April 2012). Likewise, more than 600 German secondary schools operate according to the multilingual course-based structure (Schlemminger 2008) - internationally referred to collectively as CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning, cf. Coyle et al. 2010, Marsh & Meyer 2012) and termed “ Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht ” in Germany (cf. Elsner 2009). Rymarczyk (2005) emphasises that in CLIL the foreign language is either exported in one or multiple school subjects or the subject matters are integrated in the foreign language classes (also see chapter 5 in this volume). In the most widespread model - bilingual careers in a long-term format - the first foreign language is taught with an increased number of hours per week in grades 5 and 6, while from grade 7 or 8 onwards the foreign language is used as the dominant working language in up to three subjects until the end of the secondary school career in a separate path (cf. Fehling 2008: 22 f.). In an attempt to facilitate this access, usually the weekly hours of the subjects are additionally increased in the first year of learning. A more stripped-down version of the concept is the bilingual subject teaching (bilingualer Fachunterricht) in which fewer subjects are instructed bilingually. Often there are no separate education trajectories for the bilingual learner, nor is the share of foreign language classes increased (ibid.). Unlike the immersion concept CLIL requires considerably less than 50 per cent of the learning content to be instructed in the foreign language. Nonetheless, results of the DESI-study (Klieme 2008) and the DEZIBEL study (Zydatiß 2007) revealed that the majority of learners who had acquired the foreign language in bilingual education paths at secondary level had a higher lexical-grammatical competence as well as better language skills in the target language than students of mainstream education classes in grammar schools (for further details also see Hollm et al. 2010 and Hollm et al. forthc.). However, the DEZIBEL study could also show that the level of discourse proficiency attained by the learners is dependent on rather high levels of linguistic competence and/ or proficiency in the foreign language (cf. Zydatiß 2012: 27). 4 Bilingual modules Recently, a new version of bilingual teaching and learning has been established with the introduction and implementation of “ bilingual modules ” . Such modules actually form a subcategory of CLIL. The main difference is the frequency and intensity in which the foreign language is integrated into the weekly time-table. In the bilingual modules the foreign language is also used as the language of instruction, albeit only for time-limited and topic-specific phases of lessons in which the contents of one or more subjects are mediated in a foreign language (cf. Carl et al. 2006: 6). This way of bilingual learning can be practised by mainstream school teachers without an explicit “ bilingual branch ” as well as within the frame of working groups or temporary projects (cf. Krechel 2001, Elsner 2009). Consequently, this form offers the easiest and fastest possibility to increase the contact with the foreign language in daily lessons at mainstream schools and to address authentic subject matters in the target language. Students, however, CLIL Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht bilingual subject teaching research on CLIL 20 Chapter 3 should not be expected to deliver the same success rates in their foreign language development compared to the afore-mentioned concepts since the duration and intensity of foreign language input is not comparable (cf. Elsner & Keßler 2012). Yet, the outcomes of the European PROCLIL research study (Ioannou-Georgiou & Pavlou 2010; Massler & Burmeister 2010) which has been conducted in Cyprus, Germany, Spain, and Turkey between 2006 and 2009 suggest that teachers and students feel that CLIL modules have a positive impact on students ’ foreign language competence. (cf. Massler 2012: 41). Moreover, many of the positive aspects of bilingual learning processes on the linguistic and objective development of the learner also come into effect in this concept as illustrated in the following paragraph. 5 Bilingual added value - or which opportunities does bilingual learning contain for foreign language development? There is common understanding that CLIL programmes foster both foreign language learning and content learning (e. g. Coyle et al. 2010). According to Eurydice (2006) CLIL contributes specifically to: - preparing pupils for life in a more internationalised society and offering them better job prospects on the labour market (socio-economic objectives); - conveying to pupils values of tolerance and respect vis-à-vis other cultures, through use of the CLIL target language (socio-cultural objectives); - enabling pupils to develop: language skills which emphasise effective communication, motivating pupils to learn languages by using them for real practical purposes (linguistic objectives); subject-related knowledge and learning ability, stimulating the assimilation of subject matter by means of a different and innovative approach (educational objectives). (Eurydice 2006: 22) However, in the Eurydice Country Report for Germany (Eurydice 2006) not only the benefits of CLIL programmes are stressed but also some challenges for CLIL programme development are pointed out. One challenge that must not be neglected is that the introduction of CLIL programmes at a rather early stage in the learners ’ educational career might serve as a selective measure contributing to an exclusion of slow learners and learners with learning difficulties from those programmes (Eurydice 2006: 10). This challenge is important and definitely needs to be addressed. However, this criticism does not question the benefits of CLIL programmes in primary schools but rather urges programme developers as well as teachers and teacher trainers not to forget about those learners. It has been shown that CLIL programmes as well as bilingual modules can easily integrate less privileged learners (e. g. Huber 2009, Schwab et al. 2012; also see chapter 4 in this volume). Bilingual learning arrangements (be they immersion programmes or CLIL classes) obviously have a positive effect on the development of the foreign language. Different studies have shown that students who have taken part in bilingual or immersive teaching constellations fared better with regard to different aims of bilingual teaching programmes effects on foreign language development Bilingual Approaches to Foreign Language Education in Primary School 21 areas of competence than students who have only attended regular foreign language classes (e. g. Zydatiß 2007, Klieme 2008, Burmeister 2006); positive effects for younger as well as for older students in areas of vocabulary development, receptive and productive skills, pronunciation and language learning motivation have been proven (de Zarobe 2011, Lasagabaster 2008; also see chapter 4 in this volume). These effects cannot solely be explained by the increased contact hours that students are exposed to through more frequent speech contact, even though such linguistic input is one of the major aspects (e. g. Elsner & Keßler 2012). Additionally, the positive effects of the speechand subject-connective learning can be validated by the fact that foreign language learning processes in bilingual settings closely resemble first language acquisition (cf. Wode 1995). While in traditional foreign language classrooms vocabulary that has been learned thoroughly in the first language (L1) needs to be explicitly “ acquired ” again, the acquisition of terminology in bilingual classes does not only happen on the linguistic level but takes place on the conceptual level at the same time (Wolff 2007: 19). In other words, if students want to understand the functions of the human skeleton, they need to learn the English terms as well and vice versa. In the bilingual learning process world knowledge and foreign language knowledge are linked through the direct encounter with the content phenomena in the foreign language right from the start. This does not only lead to a more profound penetration of the subject matter and language but to a longer-lasting and improved memory of the learned material (ibid). Subsequently, a significantly more authentic usage of language arises in bilingual lessons compared to foreign language classes. In these lessons content is mostly used in a “ pseudo-real ” context (Wolff 2008: 161), meaning that vocabulary and linguistic structures are applied and practised because the language is supposed to be learnt explicitly (e. g. “ This is a ball ” , “ Can you show me the cat? ” ), while language in CLIL settings serves as a medium of negotiation within the frame of learning processes (e. g. “ Can you guess which things are attracted by a magnet? ” ). Communication and language use do not take place for their own sake here but act as a tool for problem solving and knowledge enhancement purposes - similar to first language acquisition (cf. Keßler & Plesser 2011). Linguistic terminology which is acquired in bilingual lessons goes beyond the everyday level of communication and hence beyond the development of the socalled “ Basic Interpersonal Communication Skill ” (BICS) (Cummins 1984) - our everyday speech. In the context of bilingual learning processes students rather easily acquire terminology in the foreign language - the so-called “ Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency ” (CALP) (ibid.) - a type of decontextualised and abstract (technical) language everybody needs to acquire in their first language as well. While terminology that has to be learnt in the foreign language classroom is usually linked to topics with pupils ’ everyday lives, such as toys, hobbies and friends, or school, vocabulary learning in bilingual lessons is linked to more demanding and abstract topics. These often focus on science phenomena such as the life-cycle of a frog or pollution. Indeed, these topics also start out from the children ’ s realm of experiences, but this connection fades gradually with the learning language and concepts language as medium of negotiation BICS / CALP 22 Chapter 3 increasing content requirements (cf. Breidbach 2006: 12). Bilingual learning, in consequence, is the more demanding learning, which can lead to an improved development of foreign language knowledge from a qualitative as well as quantitative perspective (see also Varkúti 2010). 6 Development of subject-specific competences As subject-specific competences are developed through communicative language usage (Breen & Candlin 1980) and knowledge is built in interactional negotiation processes (Vygotsky 1978, Long 1996), we may assume that language and content are inseparable. With this said, many parents and teachers have reservations whether students might fail to understand the content of the particular subject correctly or sufficiently due to the foreign language (see above; also cf. Eurydice 2006). These concerns, however, seem to be rather unfounded from a scientific point of view. The first studies from immersive contexts on the question of how bilingual learning affects the development of competences in school subjects could expose that bilingual learners, for instance, performed better in mathematics than learners from monolingual programmes or at least have not shown any inferiority as opposed to monolingual-educated children (e. g. de Jabrun 1997, Zaunbauer & Möller 2006). In other subjects there were no differences between monoand bilingual-educated children; in some cases the increase in subject-specific knowledge was initially slower compared with students who have been instructed in their native languages but these differences are equalized after a certain period of time (cf. Kersten et al. 2009). Bilingual learners, however, often develop a higher level of social competences and display more creativity and efficiency at problem-solving issues and a higher motivation for learning and problem-solving (cf. ibid. as well as Baetens Beardsmore 2008, de Jong 2006, Fehling 2008). How can these effects be explained? Firstly, bilingual classes excel in their frequent change of representation forms and the enhanced employment of visual aids so that learners comprehend contentspecific phenomena through different channels. Secondly, the learning of language and content in a bilingual classroom is always closely related to actually doing things (e. g. Kersten et al. 2009). As cognitive sciences have indicated, learning processes are particularly successful when they require an active involvement with the subject matter in a meaningful context (cf. Knecht 2008: 515) - with “ meaningful ” understood as being linked to attention, emotion, curiosity or reward. According to Madrid & Hughes (2011: 25) Vygotsky established this relationship in the following way: Success in learning a foreign language is contingent on a certain degree of maturity in the native language. The child can transfer to the new language the system of meanings he [or she] already possesses in his [her] own. The reverse is also true - a foreign language facilitates mastering the higher forms of the native language. The child learns to see his language and content are inseparable hands-on approach meaningful interaction Bilingual Approaches to Foreign Language Education in Primary School 23 [or her] language as one particular system among many, to view its phenomena under more general categories, and this leads to awareness of his [or her] linguistic operations. Vygotsky (1986: 195 - 196; quoted from Madrid & Hughes 2011: 25) The initiation of meaningful communication in bilingual classrooms does not seem to be very problematic due to the very nature of the non-language subjects. Be it physical education, biology or arts classes, learning in these subjects implicates learning through actions, experimenting, trying out or moving (see also chapter 5 in this volume). 7 Some thoughts about bilingual learning in regular primary schools The efficiency of the two-hour foreign language concept in primary schools has been questioned more frequently recently (on the discussion cf. Keßler 2011). Even though primary school children notably benefit from the foreign language teaching on the affective and receptive level and develop a desire for further learning of foreign languages, discussions have started about how to improve young learners ’ productive skills in the foreign language (cf. Engel et al. 2009). To date, students communicate too little, the lessons are too teacher-centred and children are not challenged sufficiently (cf. ibid.). The time has come to search for new approaches to teaching foreign languages at primary level which provide more time with and in the foreign language in a qualitative and quantitative dimension. Since the number of foreign language classes per week cannot be increased easily due to the given school timetables, bilingual programmes could raise the crucial contact time with the foreign language many times over. And even though it does not necessarily have to be a half-day bilingual concept or an entire school department teaching in a foreign language, some selected topics of the primary curriculum are suited very well for bilingual modules, such as All about me! What do I like? Around school, Fruit and Vegetables, Clothes, Christmas, Easter, Seasons, etc. (cf. Abendroth-Timmer 2010: 10). Another way to initiate bilingual language learning in regular primary classes is team-teaching. In this concept, two teachers instruct one class at the same time in two languages; a change of teachers is possible based on the topics (ibid.). Another promising approach to early learning in CLIL contexts has been introduced by the Flachsland Zukunftsschule in Hamburg. On the basis of different traditions of progressive education, education in Flachsland chiefly aims at self-paced and self-instructed learning, the development of learner autonomy, and self-responsibility. According to the school ’ s rationale, the daily structure gives room for a maximum of autonomous learning with a wide range of learner-centred activities, and a maximum of learners ’ self-regulation in terms of content matter, time, and the chosen approach (cf. Elsner & Keßler 2012). After a rather disappointing start of the bilingual programme at the end of the first year of primary school instruction at Flachsland, a revised and intensified schedule including a more compulsory amount of contact time and input in the target language for all learners was suggested and implemented combining different learning scenarios shifting from more-learner centred, self-regulated activities to more teacher-guided, closed tasks (Elsner & Keßler 2011 and 2012). bilingual learning in regular primary schools bilingual learning and learner autonomy 24 Chapter 3 All of the results after the second year of bilingual learning at Flachsland have clearly demonstrated that learning a foreign language in autonomous settings is possible and that learners can even benefit from such a learning situation, if - sufficient language input is given, - errors are being corrected during language focused activities, - closed, open, and semi-structure tasks are in a balance, - teachers consequently reflect upon their goals and teaching methodology. (for further details see Elsner & Keßler 2012: 46) Generally speaking, it is not decisive how the foreign language enters everyday school life apart from foreign language classes but merely that students can comprehend the change of teachers or languages with a reasonable regularity and continuity (cf. Elsner & Keßler 2011). Apart from science classes, particularly arts, music, and physical education classes are suitable for the integration of the foreign language because of their specific actionand movement-oriented characters, which enable an additional emotional experience in combination with the foreign language (cf. Rymarczyk 2005, Beier-Marchesi 2009, see also chapter 5 in this volume). Social study classes are also well-suited because of the enhanced use of group and pair work (e. g. during experiments, preparations of presentations, etc.) so that these classes can be performed in two languages with different lesson materials and in selected units. It is important to accept here that bilingual learning is not about linguistic correctness but the display and summary of subject-specific contents, the formation of hypotheses, drawing comparisons, conducting questionnaires, and for analysis and interpretation purposes. Here, the motto “ message before accuracy ” is crucial since it is not of considerable relevance for the development of content-based understanding whether you master the third-person singular “ s ” while making speculations, or saying a word in German because you do not know the English term. 8 Uncertainties and limitations of bilingual learning Despite the afore-mentioned advantages primary school teachers only make little use of the foreign language in the subjects they teach. 1 According to these teachers, this is due to a lack of materials and the massive amount of time the preparation of bilingual modules bring with them. For those who entertain the idea of applying foreign language teaching in their own primary schools or primary school classes the “ Leitfaden für die Einrichtung von Immersions-Angeboten in Grundschulen ” ( “ Guideline for the Implementation of Immersion Offers in Primary Schools ” ) can be highly recommended. The guideline which includes experiences from immersion schools and their scientific monitoring can be downloaded for free at http/ / : www.fmks-online.de/ _wd_showdoc.php? pic=674 (accessed 14 April 2012). 1 These results were revealed through a questionnaire of 103 primary school teachers in Lower Saxony, Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia by Elsner. message before accuracy guidelines Bilingual Approaches to Foreign Language Education in Primary School 25 Another difficulty lies in the uncertainty regarding the effects of the bilingual programmes on the development of the mother tongue. Many parents and teachers are worried that the L1 of children, who participate in a bilingual classroom, may suffer from learning in the L2. International and national research have shown, that bilingually instructed children perform at least as good in their mother tongue, if not even better, than monolingually educated children, although children in bilingual programmes have received less classes in their first language (cf. e. g. Genesee 1987, Zaunbauer & Möller 2006, 2007). Others question if plurilingual children with migration backgrounds are overburdened with learning non-language content in a modern foreign language. As experience shows and research proves, however, bilingually-educated children do not have any disadvantages when learning in two languages, provided that the children ’ s first language is applied and promoted sufficiently outside school or in separate language classes (cf. Piske & Burmeister 2008: 146). Furthermore, it is not clear after which guidelines evaluation should take place in the content-based classes if the linguistic competence is not supposed to be part of the evaluation. Experts agree that linguistic mistakes should not affect grading in bilingual settings. Content is supposed to be evaluated, thus, it is of importance what needs to be accomplished by the student on the level of the subject content (cf. Vollmer 2002). Teachers should still correct and comment on linguistic mistakes, and students should be in a position to use the (selected) technical terminology - no matter if they do that in their L1 or L2. Binding statements on grading and corresponding information on competence requirements in bilingual classes can certainly be considered a desideratum nonetheless (see chapter 6 in this volume). 9 Summary In this chapter we have shown that bilingual learning is a well-researched field of instructed foreign language learning. Research has proven bilingual programmes to be amongst the most successful foreign language programmes overall. Until recently most of the research (both international and national) has focused on secondary education. However, there is an increasing number of studies on the impact of bilingual teaching and learning at primary school level and even at preschool level (eg. Kersten et al. 2010, Massler & Burmeister 2010, Elsner & Keßler 2011, 2012). We have demonstrated that bilingual learning can be realised in various ways. The most intensive and successful approach is the immersion approach where more than 50 % of all subjects are taught in the target language. However, this approach is yet to be found rather sparsely throughout Germany and Europe. This can be explained by the relatively great efforts necessary in order to offer a proper immersion programme at primary school level. CLIL approaches are more widespread - until to date more in secondary than in primary school education - and render also an inspiring and valuable contribution to instructed foreign language acquisition. Throughout this chapter it has been discussed that CLIL programmes are successful options for a more authentic foreign language input effects on L1 development bilingual learning for plurilingual children assessment in bilingual programmes 26 Chapter 3 and use. If - for any reasons - your school is not yet ready to employ an immersion or CLIL programme that does not mean that you or your learners are doomed to traditional foreign language teaching. Bilingual modules can be more than just a compromise in terms of going beyond traditional classroom teaching. Wherever a subject area offers appropriate links to target language use a bilingual module should be the approach of your choice. We have also provided evidence that one need not be afraid that less privileged or slow learners would be left behind in bilingual teaching. As results from various studies have shown, well organised bilingual education offers by far more chances than challenges to any learner. A closer look at learners with a migration background who grow up with more than one language reveals that these learners also benefit from any approach to bilingual teaching. Review - Reflect - Research 1. Take a look at your pre-reading activities and your answers to the questions there. Would you answer those questions now differently? If yes, which one(s) and in what way? If not, why not? 2. What would you need in order to start a bilingual module in your class, now? How could you fulfil that need (Who would you need to talk to? What would you need to organise in another way than before? Which topic area would be most appropriate to start out a bilingual module? ) 3. Plan your own bilingual module for one topic of your choice. Create at least one worksheet and/ or material for your bilingual teaching in primary school. Try out how it works and reflect the strengths and weaknesses of your bilingual module and material. (If you like you can upload your bilingual teaching unit at www.bilingual-education.narr-studienbuecher.de where you will also find sample units and materials). Further reading suggestions: Massler, U. & Burmeister, P. (Hrsg.) (2010), CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann. Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010): CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Zarobe, Y. R., Sierra, J. M. & del Puerto F. G. (eds.) (2011), Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning, Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang. Eurydice (2006): Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe: Country Report: Germany. Brüssel: Europäische Kommission. Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (eds.) (2012), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence - Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstätt: Eichstätt Academy Press. Magazines & Journals: The International CLIL Journal (Vol. 1/ 2008- Vol. 1/ 2012). [Online], available at http: / / www.icrj.eu/ [accessed 20 September 2012]. Bilingual Approaches to Foreign Language Education in Primary School 27 Chapter 4 Bilingual Education: Chances and Challenges Thorsten Piske In this chapter you will explore the results of research examining the effectiveness of bilingual programmes that have been introduced in primary schools in Germany since the end of the 1990 s. The major focus of the chapter is on studies that have examined bilingual students ’ L1 and L2 development as well as their achievements in subjects such as mathematics (and science). The major goal of the chapter is to provide more concrete answers to the question whether and to what extent L2 learners may benefit from bilingual programmes. The chapter also gives you the opportunity to analyse examples of learner language in terms of errors typically produced by native-speaking German students learning English in bilingual classrooms. Pre-reading activities 1. The early foreign language programmes that have been implemented in Germany have often been criticised as being ineffective or even useless. List reasons why the foreign language as subject lessons that can be found at most German primary schools may not have produced the positive results many people appear to have expected. 2. In early bilingual programmes, children are intensively exposed to an L2 from an early age onwards. Examine reasons why parents, teachers and school administrators may have concerns if they consider enrolling children in an early bilingual programme. 3. Collect arguments for and against simultaneous L1 and L2 literacy instruction in early bilingual programmes. 4. Consider groups of learners for whom early bilingual programmes might not be suitable. Structure of the chapter This chapter summarizes the results of research examining the effectiveness of some early German-English bilingual programmes that have been implemented in German primary schools. The first part of the chapter explores the question to what extent learning conditions identified as having positive effects on L2 learning can be found a) in the language as subject lessons offered at most German primary schools and b) in early bilingual programmes offered by at least a few primary schools in Germany. The second part of the chapter will provide a survey of results obtained in studies examining bilingual students ’ L2 development, their L1 development and their development of subject knowledge. The focus of the last part of the chapter is on research questions that still have to be examined in primary schools offering early bilingual programmes in Germany. 1 Introduction Since the beginning of the 1990 s an increasing number of European politicians, school administrators, foreign language practitioners and foreign language researchers have emphasised that it is necessary to introduce more successful foreign language programmes in the schools of Europe. According to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001), more effective foreign language programmes are, for example, needed to protect the cultural and linguistic diversity that can still be found within the European Union but that might be at risk if the languages of the larger European countries continue to become more and more dominant. Another reason why more successful foreign language programmes are needed, is that only highly effective language programmes will enable EU residents to make use of their right to seek employment throughout the entire EU territory. Because of these and other reasons, there appears to be broad consensus today that children growing up in EU member countries should be given the opportunity to reach a high level of proficiency in at least three languages - their first or native language and two additional languages spoken in Europe. One possible way to reach this goal is to introduce the first foreign language in primary school or even earlier, i. e., in preschool or kindergarten (see chapter 7) and to introduce the second foreign language when children enter secondary school (e. g., Wode et al. 1999). If this approach is followed, schoolchildren are exposed to their first and their second foreign language for a much longer period of time than they usually are if the first foreign language is introduced in grade 5 and the second foreign language is introduced in grade 7 as it used to be the case in most German schools until the beginning of the 21 st century. 1 In all 16 German federal states, children are now given a chance to study a foreign language, mostly English, but sometimes also other languages such as French, at primary school level. In most states, the first foreign language is introduced in grade 3. In some states such as Baden-Württemberg and North Rhine-Westphalia it is already introduced in grade 1. The one characteristic that almost all foreign language programmes offered at German primary schools share is that the first foreign language is taught in a rather playful way for about two lessons per week. However, since German primary school children were first given the opportunity to study foreign languages, doubts about the effectiveness of early foreign language teaching have often been expressed in the media, i. e., in newspaper and journal articles, radio interviews etc. Apparently, the rather 1 In Germany, children are usually about 6 to 10 years old when they attend primary school, and they are about 11 years old when they enter secondary school in grade 5. cultural and linguistic diversity in Europe Bilingual Education: Chances and Challenges 29 playful language as subject approach followed by most German primary schools has not produced the positive results many people had expected when foreign language lessons were first introduced in the primary grades (for a discussion of this issue, see, e. g., Bleyhl 2009, Burmeister et al. 2011). In order to understand why the approach to early foreign language teaching followed by most German primary schools since the end of the 1990 s has not been able to live up to the high expectations many people appear to have had in the beginning, it is important to consider four factors that have been found to be crucial for success in second language learning in a relatively large number of studies conducted by L2 researchers (for overviews, see, e. g. Singleton & Ryan 2004, Piske 2007, in press). The first of these factors is an early start. Almost all studies comparing people who began learning an L2 either rather early or rather late in life have found that the earlier an L2 is learnt the greater the ultimate success will be in learning this language. However, many studies have also shown that success in learning an L2 is not only dependent on an early starting age. A second factor that has been identified as strongly contributing to greater progress in L2 learning is continuous and intensive exposure to the new language. In this context, it is important to note that it is not enough to simply receive a lot of L2 input over a period of several years. As a number of studies have shown, a third factor contributing to success in L2 learning is frequent use of the new language in diverse and motivating contexts. And finally, it has been found that L2 learners are more likely to learn to speak an L2 really well if they receive authentic and enriched input provided by teachers or other interlocutors with at least almost native-like skills in the L2. In Germany, the first of these four conditions for successful foreign language learning, i. e., an early starting age, is met today, because children usually begin to learn their first foreign language in primary school. However, in most German primary schools, the other three conditions for greater success in foreign language learning are not met: Firstly, it is important to remember that in most primary schools, the first foreign language is usually taught for only two lessons per week, which means that the children are neither continuously nor intensively exposed to this language. Moreover, very often primary school children are taught foreign languages such as English in English-as-subject lessons with a strong focus on listening comprehension, and this means that they are not given the chance to frequently use, i. e., speak and write, the new language in many different contexts. And a last important point is that, unfortunately, German primary school children are still often taught foreign languages such as English by teachers who did not study the foreign language as a university subject and who are therefore often not able to provide their students with authentic and enriched input in the foreign language. If we understand that several conditions strongly contributing to greater success in L2 learning are not met in most German primary schools, it is actually not surprising that many of the early foreign language programmes implemented in Germany on the basis of language as subject lessons have not produced the positive results many people appear to have expected. Another important point that should be noted in this context is that there are often large differences between the ways in which foreign languages are taught language as subject approach 4 factors for success in L2 learning age L2 exposure L2 use L2 input 30 Chapter 4 and learnt in primary and secondary school classrooms. For example, in Germany reading and writing in the foreign language currently play a minor role in most primary school classrooms (e. g., Rymarczyk & Diehr 2010). This is very different in secondary school classrooms, where written texts play an important role from the beginning. And therefore it is not surprising that secondary school teachers are sometimes not content about the reading and writing skills their 5 th graders have developed during the four primary grades. What we really need is a continuous concept for foreign language teaching from the primary to the secondary grades enabling children to make a “ smooth ” transition from primary school to secondary school. In primary schools offering bilingual programmes, the learning conditions that have been found to be crucial for successful L2 learning can be met to a much larger extent than in primary schools in which foreign languages are taught in language as subject lessons. Some primary schools with bilingual programmes in Germany, for example, follow a bilingual approach that is similar to the early partial immersion programmes which were first introduced in Canadian preschools and elementary schools in the 1960 s (e. g., Wesche 2002, see also chapter 3). In these primary schools, the foreign language is used to teach at least parts of the school curriculum from the first day of grade 1 onwards. In other words, in the schools following the early partial immersion approach in Germany, several subjects, for example, maths, art or physical education, are taught exclusively in English, and depending on the school (see chapters 3 and 5), the children are actually exposed to the foreign language for about 50 - 70 % of the time and to German for only 30 - 50 % of the time. In several schools that follow the early immersion approach the L2 English is not taught as a subject, but the primary school pupils learn English because they are actively involved in classroom activities and because they are encouraged to speak English as often as possible. Moreover, the students are mostly taught by native speakers of German who studied English in order to become English teachers. These teachers only speak English in class, unless they introduce technical terms, which are always introduced in both English and German. Finally, it is important to note that there are both children from German families and children from families with migrant backgrounds in the immersion classes and that both children with prior knowledge of English from their time at preschool/ kindergarten and children without any prior knowledge of English are accepted into these classes (for further information on these programmes, see, e. g., Burmeister & Pasternak 2004, Piske & Burmeister 2008, Wode 2009). It is, of course, easy to see that in contrast to children learning a foreign language such as English in regular English as subject lessons the children in primary schools following an immersion approach are given the opportunity to learn the foreign language English under those four conditions that have been discussed above and that have been found to be crucial for success in foreign language learning, i. e., an early starting age, continuous and intensive exposure to the L2, frequent use of the L2 in many different contexts (i. e., subjects) and exposure to authentic and enriched input provided by teachers with at least almost native-like skills in the L2. Moreover, it is important to note continuous concept partial immersion programmes Bilingual Education: Chances and Challenges 31 that although reading and writing are first introduced in German in most of the schools offering these programmes, the English writing system is also present from the start, because a (bi)literate environment is created by not only putting German, but also English words and sentences on posters, wall dictionaries, work sheets, etc. and because the students have to work with written English materials from a very early point onwards (e. g., Burmeister & Piske, 2008, Burmeister 2010). A number of studies examining children enrolled in immersion programmes in Germany have addressed questions frequently asked by parents, teachers and school administrators about the effectiveness of bilingual primary school programmes. The most frequently asked questions include the following ones: a) How do the foreign language skills of children in immersion programmes develop over time? b) Do children in immersion programmes show deficits in their knowledge of German? c) Do children in immersion programmes show deficits in the development of subject knowledge? In the next part of this chapter, we will summarize which answers can currently be given to these (and other) questions on the basis of studies examining primary school immersion students. 2 Research evidence 2.1 Immersion students ’ L2 development Many international studies have shown that students in bilingual programmes usually develop much higher levels of proficiency in a second language than students in regular language as subject lessons (for an overview, see, e. g. Pérez- Cañado 2012). In several studies carried out in Germany, primary school immersion children ’ s L2 development has also been investigated (e. g., Kersten et al. 2002, Piske 2006, Kersten 2009, Burmeister 2010, Möller 2010). Some of these studies examined how the children ’ s use of verbal inflections developed over time (e. g., Kersten et al. 2002, Piske 2006, Kersten 2009). The data analysed in these studies were taken from picture narrations recorded from primary school children in German-English immersion programmes. At the end of each school year these children were asked to describe the 24 pictures of the wordless picture book “ Frog, where are you? ” (Mayer 1969). Figure 1 summarizes the data of 18 native German-speaking children who belonged to the same class and who were taught all school subjects except for German language arts in the second language English from the first day of primary school onwards. The figure illustrates both how the children ’ s knowledge of the English lexicon and their knowledge of English grammar increased over time. The figure summarizes the average number of different verbs or verb types, the average number of verb tokens, that is the number of verb forms on the whole occurring in a picture narration and the average number of verb-related errors most frequently asked questions 32 Chapter 4 produced by the children at the end of grades 1, 2 and 3. As shown in the figure, at the end of grade 1 each of the children used an average of 10 different verbs or verb types in his or her picture narration. The average number of verb forms or tokens that, on the whole, occurred in a child ’ s picture narration was 25. From the end of grade 1 to the end of grade 3 these numbers actually doubled. So, as one would expect, the stories told at the end of grade 3 were not only longer than the ones told at the end of grade 1, but they were also characterised by greater diversity in terms of the vocabulary the children used. The most important development shown by the figure, however, is that although the average number of verb types and verb tokens used by the children had doubled from grade 1 to grade 3, the average number of verb-related errors they produced had actually dropped from 17 at the end of grade 1 to 10 at the end of grade 3. This observation indicates that the children ’ s grammatical knowledge of English had increased considerably over time even though they had not received any more specific instruction in English grammar (for further details, see Piske 2006). Figure 1: The average number of verb types, verb tokens and verb-related errors produced by immersion students (n = 18) at the end of grades 1, 2 and 3. Excerpts 1 and 2 below illustrate more explicitly how the bilingual children ’ s ability to speak English developed over time. The first excerpt shows how one of the 18 children whose data are included in figure 1 described the first seven pictures of the picture book “ Frog, where are you? ” at the end of grade 1. IE Please, don ’ t show me the pictures, okay? Just take the book like this, okay? Start now. S The boy and the dog I can see a frog. IE Okay. Bilingual Education: Chances and Challenges 33 S The frog running away next morning it XXX IE Can you speak a bit louder, so I can understand S At next morning is the Frosch away. IE Ah! Right! S The boy and the dog suchen the frog. IE What? They what . . .? S . . .suchen den frog. IE Okay. S The boy rufen the frog. The boy, äh the dog falling down. IE Okay. S The boy helding the dog im Arm. IE: English-speaking interviewer; S: student; XXX: utterance not intelligible German Frosch = frog; German suchen = look for; German den = the; German rufen = shout; German im Arm = in his arms. Excerpt 1: Picture story told at the end of grade 1 by a primary school student enrolled in a German- English partial immersion programme. This short excerpt clearly shows that after only ten months of exposure to English it was no greater problem for this girl - who had not attended a German-English bilingual preschool/ kindergarten before entering primary school - to use her first foreign language in order to describe the pictures of a picture book she had never seen before. Of course, the students ’ use of English vocabulary was still quite limited and her utterances displayed several verb-related errors. However, as has already been pointed out above, the number and types of verb-related errors the children produced in their stories decreased over time. This is also illustrated by excerpt 2, which shows how the same student who produced the utterances in excerpt 1 described the first seven pictures of the story “ Frog, where are you? ” two years later, i. e., at the end of grade 3. IE That ’ s great. You can start. S One day there was a little boy and his name was Bob and he had a frog and a dog. IE Good. S And there was lying on the ground a t-shirt and a sock. IE Very good. Can you speak a little bit louder? That would be great. S And it was evening. IE Very good. S And the boy and the dog looked at the frog. Then they had go to sleep and the dog was/ has go too to sleep and they had both go to the bed. IE Very good. S And the frog goes out of the glass or bottle. # And the boy and the dog was so sleeping that they nothing heard. # Then on the other day the dog and the b/ boy look at the bottle and there were no frog. # Then the boy look in one big shoe if there is a frog but there is no frog, and the dog has look with his head in the bottle and there was no frog, and then the head go not out of the bottle. # 34 Chapter 4 Then they opened the window and the boy cried “ Frog, are you here? ” Then the dog fell off the window. The boy was a little grit/ a little bit angry but he helped him. IE: English-speaking interviewer; S: student; / : self-correction; #: pause Excerpt 2: Picture story told at the end of grade 3 by a primary school student enrolled in a German- English partial immersion programme. It is obvious that after three years of exposure to English this 9-year-old student was able to describe the pictures of the picture book in a rather detailed way by using complete sentences. It is also obvious that the types of errors she produced while telling the story were different than before. The student ’ s lexical and grammatical knowledge of English had obviously increased a lot from grade 1 to grade 3 although she had not received any more explicit instruction in English grammar and vocabulary. In Germany, teachers teaching primary school children in English as subject lessons unanimously report that even at the end of grade 4 their students would usually find it very difficult to describe the pictures of a picture book and that they would probably only use single words but not complete sentences, as many immersion students already do at the end of grade 1, in order to describe what is going on in a picture of a picture book. Burmeister (2010) analysed written texts produced by immersion students who attended the same primary school as the student whose excerpts of picture narrations were presented above. According to Burmeister (2010), many foreign language teachers adopt a rather deficiency-oriented approach when assessing their students ’ writing skills. Instead of acknowledging what their students can already do, they would rather focus on what the students cannot do. In her study, she analysed 3 rd and 4 th grade immersion students ’ written texts. She found that these texts included several orthographic and linguistic errors, but that they were also characterized by a relatively high degree of coherence and cohesion. In excerpt 3 below, a 4 th grader from an immersion classroom describes how she spent her Christmas holidays. Although this text includes a number of errors, it also illustrates that during the time at primary school the German-speaking student had developed the ability to express her thoughts and ideas in texts she was asked to write in the L2 English. As has already been described above, students enrolled in early German-English immersion programmes usually learn to read and write in German, but they are not systematically taught to read and write in English. According to Rymarczyk (2008 a, b), incorrect spellings of L2 words are much more likely to be used for only a rather short period of time if systematic reading and writing in the L2 is introduced as early as possible. If, on the other hand, reading and writing in the L2 is delayed, students will establish incorrect spellings of L2 words in their minds, which they will find difficult to overcome. In times in which many primary school students are exposed to two languages from an early point onwards such findings suggest that it is high time that effective ways of simultaneous L1 and L2 literacy instruction were developed that would enable children to learn to read and write in two languages at the same time (see also Piske 2010). orthographic and linguistic errors coherence and cohesion simultaneous L1 and L2 literacy instruction Bilingual Education: Chances and Challenges 35 Excerpt 3: A 4 th grade immersion student ’ s text about “ My Christmas holidays ” . According to the results and examples presented so far, children in immersion programmes soon show measurable progress in their acquisition of English vocabulary and grammar. However, bilingual approaches such as the immersion approach would be of very limited use if children in these programmes developed very good skills in the L2, but at the same showed deficits in other areas. This is why parents who consider the possibility of enrolling their children in such programmes usually also ask how their children ’ s knowledge of the L1 and their subject knowledge will develop over time. 2.2 Immersion students ’ L1 development Many parents, teachers and school administrators are worried that early intensive exposure to an L2 may have negative effects on children ’ s L1 development. The results of research conducted with children who were brought up in Germanspeaking homes and who attended a German-English partial immersion programme (see above) indicate that early intensive exposure to English does not automatically have negative effects on children ’ s L1 development. Anna Zaunchildren ’ s L1 development 36 Chapter 4 bauer, Jens Möller and some of their colleagues from Kiel University have, for example, compared immersion students ’ reading and writing skills in German to the German reading and writing skills displayed by primary school students in non-immersion classes from the same school and other schools. In order to examine the primary school students ’ reading and writing skills in German the researchers used three standardized tests: a) a reading test focusing on word reading fluency, i. e., the Würzburger Leise Leseprobe (e. g., Küspert & Schneider 1998), b) a reading comprehension task focusing on the comprehension of texts, i. e., the reading comprehension test from PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, see Bos et al. 2004) and c) a writing test, i. e., the Hamburger Schreib-Probe (May 2002). Two major findings emerged from five studies in which Zaunbauer, Möller and colleagues compared 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd and 4 th grade students from early partial immersion classes and non-immersion classes in terms of their reading and writing skills in German (Zaunbauer et al. 2005, Zaunbauer & Möller 2006, 2007, 2010, Gebauer et al. 2012): a) During their time at primary school, immersion students ’ reading fluency in German progressed faster than the reading fluency of students who were “ conventionally educated ” in German-speaking classrooms. b) The scores obtained by immersion students in tests on their orthographic skills were never significantly different from those of students in non-immersion classrooms. It is important to note that these results were obtained though cognitive and motivational differences between the immersion students and the non-immersion students were always controlled for statistically in the studies by Zaunbauer, Möller and colleagues. Taken together, the findings just reported suggest that children ’ s L1 reading and writing skills in German do not suffer if they attend a German-English bilingual programme in primary school and if they grow up in German-speaking families. In other words, at least as far as L1 reading and writing skills are concerned, parents from German-speaking families do not have to be concerned about their children ’ s L1 development if these children are enrolled in German-English early partial immersion programmes in Germany. 2.3 Immersion students ’ development of subject knowledge Many parents, teachers and school administrators are also often worried that children ’ s skills in and knowledge of certain subjects might suffer if they receive their instruction in these subjects in an L2. In some of their studies, Zaunbauer, Möller and their colleagues have not only examined early immersion students ’ reading and writing skills but also their skills in mathematics and science. Let us first review some of the findings they obtained in tests on immersion students ’ skills in mathematics (see also chapter 5). Zaunbauer & Möller (2006, 2007) employed a standardised mathematics test called Deutscher Mathematiktest für erste, zweite und dritte Klassen ( “ German maths tests for primary grades 1, 2 and 3 ” , Krajewski et al. 2002, Krajewski et al. 2004, Roick et al. 2004) to compare the mathematical skills of students in immersion and non-immersion classes. Two major findings were obtained by the two researchers (2006, 2007): a) They found that immersion students examined in grade 1 were superior to non-immersion reading and writing skills subject knowledge Bilingual Education: Chances and Challenges 37 students in the mathematics tests for 1 st graders when cognitive and motivational variables were controlled for statistically b) No significant differences were, on the other hand, found between the scores obtained by immersion and non-immersion students in the mathematics tests for 2 nd and 3 rd graders (also cf. chapter 3). Kruska et al. (2010) presented a 15-minute German educational film called Was unsere Ohren alles können ( “ What our ears can do ” ) to 3 rd and 4 th graders in immersion and non-immersion classes and asked them to answer a) multiple choice questions such as “ Dogs hear 1) no sounds, 2) higher-pitched sounds than humans, 3) lower-pitched sounds than humans, 4) the same sounds as humans and b) open questions such as “ There are three ossicles. Write down those that you know ” . Primary school curricula in Germany do not require teachers to deal with the topics ears and hearing in the primary grades. All the primary school students examined by Kruska et al (2010) had to answer 13 questions in German that were related to information presented in the film. The children were examined at two times of testing, i. e., a few minutes after they had seen the film and three months later. For both grade levels (3 rd and 4 th grade), the researchers found better learning and memory performances among immersion students in comparison to non-immersion students, even when other variables such as the students ’ sex (female or male), their family backgrounds, their cognitive skills and their performance in other domains, i. e., mathematics and German writing skills, were controlled for statistically. It is important to note that the immersion students performed better than the non-immersion students although both groups were shown a movie in German and had to answer questions in German, a language to which the immersion students were exposed much less often than the nonimmersion students. On the whole, the findings reported by Kruska et al. (2010) might be interpreted as lending support to the observation that over time bilingual programmes may exert positive effects on cognitive abilities such as concentration, divergent thinking and creativity (e. g., Bialystok 2005). Moreover, the finding reported above, that in comparison to non-immersion students the immersion students examined by Zaunbauer & Möller (2006, 2007) showed a comparable or better performance in maths tests carried out in German, support the finding by de Courcy Burston (2000) that immersion students may show advantages over non-immersion students in subject knowledge even if the immersion students receive their instruction in an L2, but are tested in their L1. This finding also illustrates that, if supported adequately, immersion students are well able to transfer and express knowledge acquired in an L2 in their L1. Finally, in this context it is important to note that different studies have also examined the suitability of immersion programmes for students who are at risk of poor academic performance, because they show low levels of academic abilities, learning disabilities or difficulties in their first language. Based on a review of the results of studies examining students from English-speaking families in English- French immersion programmes Genesee (2007: 676 - 677) concluded that with respect to both low academic ability and language impairment immersion students are not at a differentially greater risk than similar students in all-English programs. On the contrary, it appears that at-risk students with academic and language learning challenges can acquire substantial communicative competence in French while mainimmersion students perform better than nonimmersion students at-risk students 38 Chapter 4 taining parity in their academic and L1 development with similarly challenged students in all-English programs. In other words, while participation in an immersion programme has no negative effects on below average students ’ academic skills and their L1 development, it enables these students to develop substantial communicative competence in an L2. However, Genesee (2007) also points out that all students who feel unhappy in bilingual programmes or who feel that learning an L2 in such a programme is a burden, should be given the opportunity to transfer to a conventional programme. 3 Conclusions and research still required in Germany In this chapter we have mainly addressed three questions. The first of these questions was: How do the foreign language skills of primary school children in German-English immersion programmes develop over time? As described in section 2.1, studies that examined picture narrations given by students in primary schools with immersion programmes have shown that immersion students quickly develop the ability to speak English quite fluently and that they soon also show measurable progress in their acquisition of L2 vocabulary and grammar. However, in Germany there is a paucity of studies investigating how different groups of primary school children, for example, children with and without migrant backgrounds or children with and without learning difficulties, score in tests examining the development of their skills in the foreign language they acquire in the classroom. The second question addressed in this chapter was: Do children in German- English immersion programmes show deficits in their knowledge of the L1 German? As far as this question is concerned, the results of the studies carried out by Zaunbauer, Möller and colleagues indicate that early intensive exposure to English in primary schools with bilingual programmes does not automatically have negative effects on children ’ s knowledge of German. However, in order to substantiate this conclusion, we need more data and in particular, data collected in studies systematically comparing children with and without migrant backgrounds. In addition, it is necessary to examine many more aspects of bilingual children ’ s L1 development, not just their reading and writing skills. Moreover, it would also be important to examine how migrant children ’ s family language may be affected if they attend bilingual programmes such as German-English immersion programmes, because children from migrant backgrounds should not develop advanced skills in the L2, and at the same time show deficits in their native language or the majority language of the country in which they grow up. The third and last question we discussed was: Do children in bilingual programmes show deficits in the development of subject knowledge? According to the results obtained in studies examining immersion students ’ skills in mathematics and science, immersion students appear to be able to acquire the same amount of subject knowledge as students who are taught in a monolingual programme. What we need are studies comparing immersion students ’ and non- Bilingual Education: Chances and Challenges 39 immersion students ’ skills in subjects other than mathematics and science and studies examining how well children enrolled in bilingual programmes can express their knowledge in these subjects in both their L1 and the L2. On the whole, then, much more research is needed before we can draw any stronger conclusions about the effectiveness of the German-English bilingual programmes that have been implemented in Germany in recent years. What we can conclude, is that according to the results we have obtained so far, it appears to be possible for many children in German-English bilingual programmes to develop very good foreign language skills without showing any deficits in German or in their subject knowledge. Review - Reflect - Research 1. For teachers it is very important to understand why their students make certain errors. Describe the types of errors produced by the primary school student in excerpts 1 and 2 and discuss the possible sources of these errors. 2. Analyse excerpt 3 and describe both what the student who produced the excerpt can already do when writing texts in the L2 English and what difficulties she still has when asked to write a text in English. 3. Discuss possible reasons why early immersion students have usually not been found to develop deficits in their L1 and in subject knowledge. Further reading suggestions Genesee, F. (2007), French Immersion and at-Risk Students: A Review of Research Evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review 63/ 5, 655 - 688. Kruska, S. K., Zaunbauer, A. C. M. & Möller, J. (2010), Sind Immersionsschüler wirklich leistungsstärker? Ein Lernexperiment. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie 42/ 3, 143 - 153. Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012), CLIL Research in Europe: Past, Present and Future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15/ 3, 315 - 341. Piske, T. (in press), Frühbeginn allein ist nicht genug: Welchen Einfluss haben Faktoren wie Alter, sprachlicher Input, Geschlecht und Motivation auf die Ausspracheentwicklung und die grammatischen Kenntnisse von Zweitsprachenlernern? In: Bürgel, C. & Siepmann, D. (Hrsg.), Sprachwissenschaft - Fremdsprachendidaktik: Neue Impulse. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. Wesche, M. B. (2002): Early French Immersion: How Has the Original Canadian Model Stood the Test of Time? In: Burmeister, P., Piske, T. & Rohde, A. (eds.), An Integrated View of Language Development: Papers in Honor of Henning Wode. Trier: WVT, 357 - 379. 40 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Bilingual Education - Subject Matter(s) Jörg-U. Keßler & Daniela Elsner This chapter provides an overview of selected subjects that are suitable for bilingual teaching and learning. Helga Haudeck and Natasha Aristov discuss major objectives of science education at primary level in the first part of the chapter. The authors list arguments for the combination of science lessons with foreign language instruction and specify practical ideas for bilingual science lessons. In chapter 5.2 Britta Viebrock provides a brief overview of relevant research results from immersion-type and CLIL mathematics as well as theoretical considerations on the nature of mathematics and the role of language in the mathematics classroom. The author illustrates why mathematics should be included in a bilingual approach in primary education. In the third part of this chapter Katja Heim discusses the benefits of teaching Sports (P. E.), Art, and Music as bilingual subjects. She focuses on relevant issues such as classroom management and authentic language use in the respective subjects. Sample curricula, practical teaching ideas, and material for all subject areas are offered. All sub-chapters of chapter 5 illustrate that subject matter really matters for successful target language learning. Pre-reading activities 1. Which subjects do you find especially suitable for a bilingual approach in primary education? Explain your answer. 2. Have you ever taught a bilingual module? If so, what is your personal experience? If not, why not? 3. In what way would a bilingual teaching unit differ from a monolingual one? Chapter 5.1 Natural Science Natasha Aristov & Helga Haudeck The major goal of primary school science is to stimulate pupils ’ interest in natural phenomena. The chapter discusses how this goal can be achieved through the CLIL approach. The focus is on experiments which are carried out, observed, and documented by the learners. During these activities pupils process the foreign language both receptively, e. g., when they listen to or read the instructions, and productively, e. g., when they feel moved to describe or discuss the outcomes. Children ’ s literature can be used to scaffold a science lesson by guiding pupils ’ attention to a topic and providing an emotional connection to a science theme related to a story. Pre-reading activities 1. What do you expect to be fun about teaching science in primary school? Make a list of your expectations. What do you expect to be difficult about teaching science in primary school? Make a list of your concerns. 2. Try to recall science phenomena that puzzled you as a child. (Example: How can planes fly? ) Which of your questions might be questions that your pupils have, too? 3. Obtain a copy of The Gruffalo by Julia Donaldson and Axel Scheffler (MacMillan 1999) and think about how you could include the story within a science lesson. Structure of the chapter The first part of the chapter reminds readers of some major objectives of science education at primary level. We then provide arguments for combining science lessons with foreign language instruction and follow up by presenting a method for doing so, as developed within the CHILITEX (Children ’ s Literature and Experiments) project at the University of Education in Ludwigsburg (Haudeck & Aristov 2011). In the last part of the chapter we suggest major principles for bilingual education with a focus on science. 1 Science at primary grade level Science can be defined as the "observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of (natural) phenomena" (American Heritage Dictionary 2009). Most of us adults believe that we are not scientists and, therefore, think that science can be done only by very uniquely talented, highly intelligent, and very well educated people. Younger children are not burdened with this stereotype. They just want to find things out (Gopnik 1998). Of the five activities associated with the above definition of science, they can be quite adept at the first four, and their theoretical explanations are often those that prevailed up until the development of modern science beginning in the 17th century (Müller et al. 2011). In fact, for them science can be “ one of the most exciting subjects of the elementary curriculum ” (Fredericks 2008: vii). It is important to note that primary school science lessons should not resemble the usual science lesson format at secondary level and beyond, where gaining understanding of the theoretical and mathematical modelling - ‘ explaining ’ - of natural phenomena is the ultimate learning goal. Thus, at this age, ‘ learning science ’ means quite simply, experiencing the world. Whether it be watching butterflies flutter or extend their proboscis (tubular mouthparts) into a flower, noticing how they can balance a see-saw, or paying attention to how exactly they can make a swing go higher ( ‘ driven oscillators ’ in physics-speak! ), or wondering about what happens to the sugar when it gets put into a cup of warm tea (you can taste it, but you can ’ t see it, so is the taste separate from the substance? ), all of these constitute the beginnings of scientific activity - observation, identification (of a phenomenon) and experimental investigation. Since the emphasis is on experiencing the world, the role of the teacher is not that of an agent of information-transfer (Wagenschein 1977). Rather, the role of the teacher is to provide guidance: steering the pupils ’ attention to various aspects of the experimental system they are observing ( “ Is there something yellow on the butterfly ’ s legs? ” ), asking pupils to accurately and convincingly state their observations ( “ Did you actually see the butterfly ’ s proboscis go into the flower? Which part of the flower was it in? ” ), and making suggestions for further experiments ( “ Do butterflies have favorite flowers? ” ). Such dialogues mirror, in fact, discourses among professional scientists. Through such interactions, the pupils begin to practice other aspects of science, namely, ‘ description ’ and ’ investigation ’ . A brief word on ‘ theoretical explanation ’ of natural phenomena, as attributed to being a feature of science by the dictionary cited above: We usually think that an explanation answers the question ” why? ” . In our experience of over 25 years of teaching science (and substantiated by others ’ observations, e. g., Lindfors 1999), not one pupil of this age group has ever asked why something happens. We propose that, just like children are free from self-doubt about being smart enough to do science, they are also clever enough to understand that ‘ explanations ’ do not exist. It is possible to identify a cause for a particular effect; but is the cause truly an explanation? What causes the cause? A simple example will illustrate this conundrum: A toddler is amused by objects dropping off its high-chair. The child is discovering that objects move down when they are let go. If an adult is asked why the objects move down, he or she will promptly give the learned answer, “ because of (the Earth ’ s) gravity ” . At this point a child could ask ” What is gravity? ” and, in fact, scientists are still doing that! No experiencing the world the role of the teacher Natural Science 43 one knows or understands why gravity exists, why masses attract each other - they simply do. At best, so far, scientists have only provided a mathematical description of gravity that allows them to make predictions about how masses behave (Feynman 2006). Much has been written and said about ’ Inquiry-Based Science Education ’ (IBSE). This learning scenario begins with a learning unit by presenting pupils with a - hopefully - thought-provoking problem. Frequently, the problem is constructed on the basis of a need of a real or fictional character (e. g. ” John and Mary need to get across the creek but have only a few branches with which to build a bridge. Can you help them find a way to build the strongest bridge with the thinnest branches possible? ” or ” Try to build a boat (e. g., out of drinking straws and scotch tape) that can carry the largest load of pebbles. ” ).While such activities might engage some pupils, they also allow students to practice the habits of science as stated in the dictionary definition previously mentioned. Other students can be put off by the competitive aspect of such a scenario, or they may not be emotionally engaged in the thought-provoking problem at all ( “ Why should I care about transporting pebbles on boats? ” ). The activities that we propose are ’ Inquiry-Stimulating ’ , but not ’ Inquiry-Based ’ . They are intended to “ lead the horse to water ” . The horses will drink if and when they are thirsty. 2 Science in German primary schools (Baden-Württemberg) In primary school classrooms, simply experiencing a social, cultural, or natural phenomenon is a “ necessary and sufficient ” (in science speak) first goal of what is referred to in the various German states ’ curricular guidelines as ‘ Sachunterricht ’ (in Baden-Württemberg, ’ Mensch, Natur und Kultur ’ , or MeNuK for short). “ Pupils weave their feeling, thinking, will, and action into their experience of the world around them. Through learning and working in MeNuK pupils are explicitly supported in developing their language and reading competences. ” (Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg 2004: 96, our translation). This document stipulates that pupils should be motivated to find natural phenomena interesting, they should know the importance of nature, they should be able to ask questions about nature, they should be able to conduct simple experiments and make comparisons regarding their results, they should be able to represent what they know about nature in various media, such as drawing, theater, music, and of course, text. 3 Why include science in bilingual classrooms? Some people would argue that attempting to learn science in a foreign language is an unnecessary complication of an already quite complicated subject. Much research has been done to try to determine how pupils ’ science content knowledge is affected by the language of instruction. As of this writing in 2012, the jury is still out. Studies can be found from around the world that show that pupils do better, do worse, or do just about the same when they are taught in their native language or in a foreign language. Nevertheless, even in the absence of definitive Inquiry- Based Science Education MeNuK 44 Chapter 5.1 data, there are two major reasons to include science lessons in CLIL, a practical one and a pedagogical one: it saves instruction time (combining two subjects in one); and it gets students listening, reading, and talking, that is, practicing language arts. The goal of primary science education is to provide pupils with meaningful, memorable, science experiences upon which they will build their further understanding of natural phenomena. Science lessons - especially those that allow pupils to work with manipulatives ( “ experiments ” ) are notoriously popular with primary school children. Given instructions in the form, “ first do step A, then step B, and then ‘ something surprising happens ’” [when presenting scientific phenomena, Frank Oppenheimer, founder and first director of the Exploratorium in San Francisco, used to say: “ . . . and then something incredibly wonderful happens ” (Oppenheimer quoted in Cole 2009)], the pupils are generally careful to understand and follow the instructions in order to make the surprise work. Their attention is captivated and they want to see how the experiment works, and what else it might do if it is prodded in other ways. For example, in an experiment to see which objects float and which ones sink, children will spontaneously begin to test how much cargo a floating object can hold before it sinks. This is precisely the kind of situation that is desirable in a CLIL (or any) classroom: the class has an obvious emotional attachment to the learning scenario. In addition, and most important for our goal of CLIL, much verbal interaction takes place among the pupils, and between pupils and their teacher, while doing the experiment and discussing it. Interestingly, when children are cracking along doing experiments, they are not restrained by the working language. Among themselves they interact in their native tongue, despite the instructions being in the second language. Thus, implementing CLIL in science at the primary level is a great chance to engage pupils with an authentic and action-oriented approach. 4 Methodology of science-based CLIL lessons There are many different ways of allowing children to learn (about) science, for example, by reading books about science topics, by having regular class discussions about topics that the pupils themselves introduce for discussion, or by taking field trips to science museums or various natural environments and, of course, by doing experiments. A prototypical CLIL lesson for science allows students to (. . .) observe interesting natural or social phenomena, ask questions, formulate hypotheses, plan and conduct experiments or observations, document the different experimental phases, observations and findings, report the results back to the class, and reassess the hypotheses stated at the beginning of the lesson. (Burmeister & Ewig 2010: 105) A task-based approach, in which children are actively involved in investigating authentic (real world) phenomena, is the most recommended (cf. Legutke et al. 2009: 32 f). Although science teachers might be familiar with task-based teaching (for example, IBSE) they might be uncertain about how they should teach a foreign language. It is important for these teachers to understand that primary schoolreasons for CLIL in science lessons emotional attachment verbal interaction science teachers as language teachers Natural Science 45 specific ways of teaching a foreign language are different from those at the secondary level, for example, a traditional transactional approach (Wolff 2012: 101). Teaching young learners language calls for a holistic approach that is actionand content-based, and process-oriented. The students need hands-on, concrete experiences gained through multi-sensory activities linked to their spheres of experience, the same recommendations made for science teaching. For this reason the topics of primary English lessons are frequently similar to those of “ Sachunterricht ” (or “ MeNuK ” in Baden-Württemberg). A further requirement of CLIL teachers is solid proficiency in the target language so that they can provide the necessary level of input quality and engage pupils in authentic communication modes. In a nutshell, active involvement of students in a CLIL science lesson calls for teachers who are not only facilitators of learning and peer cooperation, but can also scaffold and negotiate the meaning of language and content with their students (cf. Mehisto et al. 2008: 29). 5 Lesson structure Because science lessons at the primary level deal with topics that children come across in their everyday lives, teachers can find a good starting point for structuring their lessons in their students ’ general knowledge. Proceeding from this point, the pupils are led to investigating the phenomena and describing them in greater detail. For example, it is obvious to any child that a warm coat will keep them more comfortable when outdoor temperatures are cold. What they are unlikely to know, however, is that the coat itself is not warm, it is not at a higher temperature than the outside air, and (surprise! ) is actually cooler than their body temperature. A series of experiments is then done to get them thinking about thermal insulation (e. g., choosing a material to keep an ice cube from melting or a cup of cocoa hot). Through a combination of verbal, non-verbal (gesturing) and written and graphically illustrated instructions, the students are guided through the suggested experiments. In this way, during their “ purposeful ” listening to and reading of the instructions, the students are not only intellectually engaged in understanding how to carry out the tasks and to what purpose, but also incidentally learn words and phrases (cf. Burmeister & Ewig 2010: 103). After performing the procedures according to the instructions, class time should be made available for the pupils to vary them according to their interests. One of the biggest challenges for a teacher is to allow pupils to try things that the teacher knows will not lead to any meaningful results! One must keep in mind, however, that it is not possible to know what is “ right ” without knowing what is “ wrong ” . In the final stage of the lesson the results are presented, evaluated, and compared and, through consensus (and some teacher guidance of the discussion, see above), summarized into a cohesive statement (cf. Riedl & Haudeck 2006). To help the students report on their experiments, sample outcome cards written in the target language are provided. The pupils can choose which card (including a “ none of the above ” choice) best represents what they did and saw. In order to promote the pupils ’ L2 development the teacher consistently addresses the class in the target language. If a pupil mixes German and English role of teachers starting from students ’ knowledge guided investigation presentation & evaluation of results 46 Chapter 5.1 expressions in an interaction with the teacher, the teacher reinforces target language acquisition by recasting the pupil ’ s utterance. In this case it is important for the teacher to acknowledge the pupil ’ s contribution by inquiring whether the interpretation is accurate. For example, ” Did I understand you correctly? Did you mean xxx? ” This step is important not just to reinforce correct experiences of the target language but also to encourage all children to express their ideas and participate in classroom discourse in all subjects, not just L2or science instruction (cf. Burmeister & Ewig 2010: 105, Lenz 2011: 5). Our research shows that the pupils will - especially in early stages - switch between the school language and the target language. Pupils working together with their peers mainly talk to each other in German and only occasionally use English words that they might have picked up from the experiment instructions or the teacher ’ s input. In interactions with the teacher, pupils attempt to use the target language as much as they are able and otherwise insert German expressions or ask the teacher for assistance. Interestingly, the pupils ’ interactional focus is on negotiating meaning, for instance, when they report their observations. They are hardly aware of their code-switching, which suggests that their affective filter is wide open (Meyer 2010: 14) or, as Krashen puts it, “ low ” (Krashen 1982: 32). This is in contrast to their experiences of English lessons in which their language output is monitored and assessed, both by themselves and by the teacher. This indicates that reservations about CLIL-based lessons simply being an extension of English lessons might be able to be laid to rest. 6 Children ’ s literature and experiments (CHILITEX) The importance of stories for the development of children and their perception of the world they grow up in is indisputable (Egan 1986, Bruner 1990, Ewers 1991). There are plenty of good reasons for using children ’ s literature in the classroom: emotional, attitudinal, social, and cultural benefits, as well as linguistic and cognitive learning enhancement (see Ellis & Brewster 2002: 1 f., Ellis 2006: 95). In addition, the use of picture books provides visual information that facilitates children ’ s comprehension more than orally told stories can and also fosters their visual literacy (Enever 2006: 60; Lugossy 2006: 25). Besides the benefits of stories for the general development of children, in foreign language lessons teachers use stories and children ’ s literature to improve listening skills and learning strategies such as listening for gist or detail, guessing meaning, or predicting. Many children ’ s books offer repetitive elements, such as key words or patterns, which children pick up quickly and use productively. Although experiments might appear to be the central element in science lessons, the use of stories to activate students ’ interest and participation has been highly recommended (even at the college level! see Herreid 2006): When science is taught through literature, the time for science need not come at the expense of other subjects. Integrating science with literature not only makes more elementary science education possible; it also results in more effective science teaching. Typically, cross-curricular teaching emphasizes the process skills common to many subjects rather than rote memorization of content facts. [. . .] they are developing feedback & error correction using stories to teach science AND language Natural Science 47 effective reading skills by using process skills such as observing, communicating, classifying, predicting outcomes, and drawing conclusions. (Gertz, Portman & Sarquis 1996: 1) In the CHILITEX (Children ’ s literature and experiments) project we look for picture books that can be used as a basis for a simultaneous foreign language and science classroom experience. We do not use non-fiction science books, as they tend to provide an emotional response only to a limited, science-interested, audience. Instead, we want to address all the pupils and the teacher, take advantage of their possible emotional attachment to a told story/ picture book, and lure them into the realm of science. Specifically, we look for books that stimulate questions that need experiments in order to be answered. After we have selected a book, we develop pre-, while, and post-listening activities (Ellis & Brewster 2002: 15) that support foreign language learning and deal with a science topic suggested by the story. An example is the combination of the picture book Shark in the Park and a lesson on optics (Haudeck et al. 2010, Haudeck & Aristov 2011). The pre-listening phase gets the children “ in the right frame of mind ” (Wright 2009: 18) before the story is told. This includes cognitive and emotional activities that activate prior knowledge and pre-teach key vocabulary that is essential to understand the gist, and also raise expectations and curiosity. Sometimes this is the first chance to draw the students ’ attention to natural phenomena. While the story is being told, the emphasis is primarily on listening for gist. That means that the children activate their general knowledge and their prior linguistic and scientific knowledge. Often the story includes situations in which they can be involved more actively by displaying their understanding through their body language and facial expressions. In addition, they can be given the opportunity to join in the teacher´s telling or reading out loud when certain repetitive patterns or onomatopoeic passages occur, especially when they mirror emotions. The postlistening phase consists of follow-up activities that refer to the story in different ways (ibid.: 44 ff.). A CHILITEX module uses this phase to refer to some aspect in the story and to provide the setting for the students ’ experiments. The different activities necessary to allow the children to perform the experiments, e. g., organizing the children into groups and distributing the materials, giving instructions and assisting during the procedures, expose students to authentic interactions in English. The CHILITEX approach contrasts the usual format of primary school science lessons in English in which generally only the science topic is in focus (Haudeck & Riedl 2006, Riedl & Haudeck 2006, Haudeck & Aristov 2010). The experimental step-by-step instructions are provided in English only, but drawings help the pupils to understand key points. It is desirable to plan at least two hours for a CHILITEX lesson. CHILITEX meets the six quality criteria that Meyer (2010) put forward for successful CLIL teaching and learning: 1. Rich input. This is provided by both the storytelling and the instructions for the experiments in the post-listening phase. the storytelling format quality criteria 48 Chapter 5.1 2. Scaffolding. Understanding a story is based as much on verbal input as it is on body language, facial expressions, and intonation. These qualities of a good storyteller or reader (cf. Wright 2009) provide the listeners with an enjoyable scaffolding. The teacher provides additional scaffolding for students to carry out the experiments, both pro-actively (before they begin working) and, re-actively (while they are working), that is, on-demand. 3. Rich interaction and pushed output. Both the entrancing spell of good children ’ s picture books and the fascination of experimenting guarantee a meaningful (rich) interaction. Although, as mentioned above, the pupils ’ language output is primarily in their native tongue, their output is “ intrinsically ” pushed as they are primarily motivated to negotiate meaning. Also, they are supported in their use of the target language when they report on their experiments with the help of the result cards. 4. Adding the (inter-)cultural dimension. This is mainly done by using an authentic target language children ’ s book (for examples see the book list in Haudeck et al. 2012: 162). 5. Make it H. O. T. (higher order thinking): Higher-order thinking skills as they might be categorized by Bloom ’ s revised taxonomy (starting from remembering and retrieving, leading up to understanding, applying and analyzing, and finally to creating and evaluating) are stimulated in several ways (Anderson et al. 2001). The pupils listen to the story for gist (understanding). During a second reading, specific details of the story plot and the illustrations are analysed and interpreted. Then, an aspect of the story is picked out that is not necessarily directly a part of the plot, but suggests a science topic (a question is created). For example, the sample investigation of warm jackets mentioned above was connected to Froggy Gets Dressed (Jonathan London and Frank Remkiewicz, Puffin Books 1994) in which a mother frog nags her child to get dressed for cold weather. The Gruffalo (Julia Donaldson and Axel Scheffler MacMillan 1999) suggests studying the parts of the body. Thus, pupils are guided to thinking about tangential ideas of the story. Finally, generating a question related to the story and then conducting actual experiments to answer it (application, creation of experimental procedures, evaluation of the results) is another stimulation of higher-order thinking. 6. Sustainable learning. The experiments that are chosen for CHILITEX modules provide experiences that children will need to have before continuing in secondary school science and beyond. More importantly, they concern phenomena and objects that pupils encounter and manipulate on a daily basis. Thus, they will be frequently reminded of the science context, and will be able to repeat or expand their experimental work at will. The everyday nature of the phenomena means that the language used to describe them is equally commonplace and thus sustainable. 7 Summary Primary school children are naturally curious about their daily experiences and surroundings. This curiosity can be exploited to drive their participation in bilingual instruction, especially in science experiences and experiments. The Natural Science 49 fascination that they have for such activities is not dampened by the teacher ’ s use of a foreign language of instruction. In fact, it has a positive effect on their receptive and productive language skills and vocabulary. Thus, through content and language integrated teaching, both science and foreign language learning objectives can be attained. Review - Reflect - Research 1. List at least five successful quality criteria for bilingual teaching. 2. How would you go about compensating your pupils ’ limited reading ability so that they can follow directions to an experiment? 3. Find some storybooks that offer science related topics for use in your bilingual lesson. 4. Examine one book of children ’ s experiments (available in most libraries and book stores). Sketch out a lesson plan that includes three experiments that your pupils can do in a school setting. In your lesson plan emphasize activities in which the students can talk to each other about the activities. 5. Examine the curriculum goals for your state to find the objectives of primary science education. Examine the curriculum goals for your state to find the objectives of primary foreign language education. Look for overlap between the two. Further reading suggestions Gertz, S. E., Portman, D. J. & Sarquis, M. (1996), Teaching Physical Science through Children ’ s Literature. Middletown, OH: Terrific Science Press. Lindfors, J. W. (1999), Children ’ s Inquiry: Using Language to Make Sense of the World. New York: Teachers College Press. Smith, Janice (ed.) (1995), Super Science Connections (SSC). Free download available from the Institute for Chemical Education, University of Wisconsin, Madison at http: / / ice. chem.wisc.edu/ SSC.html. [last accessed 13 September 2012]. 50 Chapter 5.1 Chapter 5.2 Mathematics Britta Viebrock In this chapter you will learn why mathematics should be included in a bilingual approach in primary education. The chapter contains a brief overview of relevant research results from immersion-type and CLIL mathematics as well as theoretical considerations on the nature of mathematics, mathematical literacy and the role of language in the mathematics classroom. Turning more practical, an explanation of the competence areas and topical fields aspired in a bilingual and competence-based approach to teaching and learning mathematics is provided. This includes a comprehensive collection of specific vocabulary and technical terminology as well as resources of ideas for teaching and sample material. Pre-reading activities 1. Based on your intuition, collect reasons why mathematics might be particularly suitable for a CLIL approach in primary education. 2. Similarly, collect arguments against CLIL in primary mathematics. 3. Try to find similarities and differences between mathematics (as a system) and natural languages. 4. Make a collection of the different discourse functions (eg. arguing, describing, etc.) you assume would be needed in the mathematics classroom. Structure of the chapter The purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed account of the potential of mathematics for content and language integrated learning in primary education. It starts with a brief overview of some empirical research results which hint at a very positive competence development in primary CLIL learners in different fields as well as a great cognitive flexibility. In a second step the competence areas related to the development of a profound mathematical literacy will be illustrated, explaining the importance of language in any kind of learning, including mathematics. In the next section, typical topics of mathematics in primary education will be provided as well as an overview of representative phrases and technical terminology needed in this context for being able to “ speak mathematically ” (the phrase is borrowed from a book title by Pimm (1987)). The final section of the chapter includes resources with tasks and materials for classroom use. 1 Introduction It may sound rather odd to begin a chapter like this, but mathematics and CLIL do not share much of a history (cf. Viebrock 2009 a, 2009 b). At least, this is true for secondary education in Germany where there has been an obvious preference in CLIL for the humanities (geography, history and political education). One central argument in the debate was that maths and sciences are much more international and hardly culturally charged. They would therefore not lend themselves to one of the main objectives of CLIL, that of intercultural learning (cf. Hallet 1998: 118). Another argument was based on the assumption that maths and science exhibit little potential for promoting foreign language learning. In addition, doubts about sufficient content matter learning and competence development through a foreign language were expressed. Another argument can be found in the structure of secondary teacher education in Germany, which requires formal training in (at least) two subjects. Since maths and a foreign language is a combination rarely found, there are simply not enough qualified teachers for a large scale implementation of a CLIL approach to mathematics in secondary schools. The situation in primary education is somewhat different in structural terms since mathematics is one of the main subjects in teacher training and can more easily be combined with studies in a foreign language. Nonetheless, similar arguments on the supposedly limited language learning potential of the mathematics classroom were brought forward (cf. Zydatiß 2000: 20 f.). Interestingly, these assumptions have not been substantiated by empirical evidence. Much rather it can be assumed that they are based on a misconception of mathematics as teaching a fixed set of rules and operations as well as the accompanying symbols, which offer little room for creative verbalisation. A more differentiated understanding of mathematics distinguishes between teaching numeracy, i. e. the ability to deal with numbers, numerical aspects and increasingly complex calculations, and a multifarious mathematical literacy, which cannot be defined in mathematical terms alone, but looks at the functional and practical aspect of mathematical knowledge in a broader context. In this respect, mathematical literacy includes many facets of language use. 2 Research evidence Much of what is known on content and language integrated learning in primary mathematics classrooms has been derived from studies in immersion-type programmes (cf. Jäppinen 2005, van de Craen et al. 2007 a, 2007 b, Couve de Murville & Lenz 2012). In Germany, a large scale longitudinal research project on learning outcomes in early partial immersion settings has been carried out by Zaunbauer & Möller (2006, 2007, 2010). Reviewing the available international research on mathematical competence in early immersion settings, they conclude that the immersion approach is likely to have positive effects in the long run. It certainly does not have negative effects (cf. 2006: 183, also van de Craen 2007 a, 2007 b, Couve de Murville & Lenz 2012). Zaunbauer & Möller (2007) are able to support this claim with results from their own study. At the end of the first year of CLIL mathematics: pro & con numeracy literacy large-scale immersion studies 52 Chapter 5.2 schooling, participants in the immersion programme accomplish test scores in reading, writing and arithmetic similar to those of the learners in the nonimmersion control group. In the second year of schooling, the test results show a similar pattern in the development of reading and writing competences in both groups. Mathematical competences, however, are considerably better in the immersion group (cf. Zaunbauer & Möller 2010). Similar results have been found in the study by Couve de Murville & Lenz (2012). In their conclusions, the authors would not go as far as to attribute the apparent increase in mathematical competences to the immersion approach alone. They stress that caution needs to be exercised with regard to the research sample, the orchestration of the lessons or parental support. Moreover, a comparison of these findings with the outcomes of another study by Zaunbauer & Möller (2006) focusing on second and third graders yields inconclusive results. Again, in this study the test scores of the immersion and non-immersion groups are similar in reading and writing, but this time no obvious difference in mathematical competences could be observed. Both groups show a comparable development and reach a similar competence level. What remains unaffected by these outcomes is the conclusion that early partial immersion programmes do not have any negative consequences for overall competence development. In summary, the outcome based studies referred to clearly support a CLIL approach to mathematics in primary education since basically two skills can be achieved at the price of one: Foreign language competences are acquired as a supplementary benefit to age appropriate mathematical competences. Furthermore, an increase in motivation with reluctant learners of mathematics is often an additional gain of the CLIL approach. Especially those interested in foreign language learning can be encouraged to engage with mathematical content more profoundly (cf. Prüfer forthcoming). Process-oriented studies on mathematics in primary CLIL or immersion settings that allow insights into classroom interaction, favourable circumstances of language learning and beneficial conditions of competence development are much scarcer. A rather personal account has been provided by Mayer (2003) who reflects on her experiences of mathematics lessons in a German immersion programme in the United States. In her data sample she is able to show how methods well established in primary foreign language learning can successfully be integrated with developing mathematical competences. Arithmetic embedded in a storytelling approach or other narrative settings, in rhymes, in physical activities or total physical response and in situated practice (e. g. simple role plays) allows for the learners to get acquainted with the mathematics in daily life and carry out simple mathematical operations despite their limited foreign language competences (also see chapter 5.1 on science by Aristov and Haudeck for a more detailed account of storytelling approaches in content-based CLIL lessons). Mayer (2003) also stresses the importance of repetitive phrases and collocations, structural support as well as a stronger focus on writing. The point to be taken away from this study is that basic principles of early foreign language teaching methodology (such as ritualisation, focus on content, message before accuracy, clear contextualization and visual support in addition to the above mentioned) need to be closely acquisition of two skills processoriented studies primary CLIL and FLT methodology Mathematics 53 observed in a CLIL approach as well. All in all, much more process-oriented research mathematics in primary CLIL is necessary to substantiate the reflections on favourable conditions of learning. Another aspect to be taken into consideration has been brought forward by research on bilingual education in migration contexts: There is evidence of a strong connection between the ability to develop subject matter competence in an L2 and the learner ’ s L1 competence (cf. Kaiser & Schwarz 2003). This line of research supports Cummins ’ s (1979) developmental interdependence hypothesis, which assumes a common underlying proficiency across languages for cognitively demanding activities such as abstract thinking or problem-solving. Thus, the better the learner ’ s L1 is developed, the broader the basis of the common underlying proficiency is, which can be drawn on for content matter learning in an L2. In their study, Zaunbauer & Möller have also found proof of an interdependence model: Die Tatsache, dass mathematische Konzepte in der L2 unterrichtet wurden, der Test (Instruktion, Textaufgaben) aber in der L1 geboten wurde, hatte für die Leistungen der immersiv unterrichteten Schüler keine ‘ Nachteile ’ . Unser Ergebnis wie auch Befunde der internationalen Forschung deuten darauf hin, dass Schüler mathematische Konzepte, die sie in der einen Sprache (L2) lernen, in einer anderen Sprache (L1) abrufen können. Grundlage dafür ist laut Cummins ’ Modell die Existenz eines gemeinsamen, sprachunspezifischen kognitiven Systems, auf das beide (mehrere) Sprachen gleichermaßen Zugriff haben. (Zaunbauer & Möller 2006: 195; the original quotation includes references to several other authors that have been left out here) In other words, the fact that the language of instruction/ classroom interaction (L2) was different from the test language (L1) did not have any negative consequences for the test takers. They were able to retrieve and display conceptual mathematical knowledge acquired in an immersion setting adequately in their L1. In view of the linguistic heterogeneity of contemporary classrooms, an important conclusion to be drawn from Cummins ’ s developmental interdependence hypothesis is the necessity for sufficient support in L1 competence development. The increasing complexity that arises when establishing a CLIL approach in multilingual classrooms, where several L1 are present at various competence levels, in monolingual schools - German being the school language and the language of reference (cf. Schütte 2006) - has not been given much thought in CLIL pedagogy so far. In fact, subject matter teaching in the official school language is a way of “ uncontrolled ” CLIL for many learners with different mother tongues, whereas the aspired CLIL programmes virtually mean learning in a third or fourth language for them. Obviously, this is not only a challenge in the (CLIL) mathematics classroom. CLIL teachers in general need to be aware of the diverse linguistic backgrounds of their learners. 3 Competence areas and mathematical literacy The relationship between the nature of mathematics (as a system) and language has been a topic of much consideration in mathematics pedagogy (cf. Bauersfeld CLIL with plurilingual learners mathematics and language 54 Chapter 5.2 1995, Maier 2006, Maier & Schweiger 1999, Niederdrenk-Felgner 2000, Pimm 1987, Ruf & Gallin 1999 a, 1999 b). Firstly, the structures of mathematics are associated with the structures of language. Similarities are described in terms of creating meaning, using symbols and applying syntactic rules. Like children trying to make sense of what they hear or read in a foreign language, learners of mathematics need to figure out the specific meaning encoded in the specific mathematical language game in order to become competent “ language users ” . (The term ‘ language game ’ is used with reference to Wittgenstein ’ s late philosophy, which attaches great value to the conventions of employing language in certain areas of life, domains or disciplines (cf. also Breidbach 2007: 184 ff.)). Secondly, it has been recognized that even against the background of such a formalistic understanding, mathematics does not exist independently of natural languages as Bauersfeld (1995: 278) points out: “ The closed descriptive systems are not self-sufficient; they inevitably rest on the richer natural language behind. There is no understanding and no access without the flexibility and metaphors of everyday languaging. ” This becomes particularly clear when looking at mathematical metaphors such as “ functions obeying a rule ” or “ discovering mathematical laws ” (Pimm 1987: 95, italics in the original). Thirdly, it has been acknowledged that mathematics is not a closed system, but that mathematical phenomena are related to real-life contexts and that the mathematical language game intersects with everyday language and other language games. In teaching and learning mathematics (as a subject), this fact has been used to support claims for a more substantial negotiation of technical terms in order to avoid interferences of meaning between everyday language and the mathematical register (cf. Niederdrenk-Felgner 2000: 4). To give an example from the German language: Whereas an everyday understanding of the term ‘ senkrecht ’ (vertical) is usually linked with the idea of a concrete object in a physically upright position on a surface, a mathematical understanding refers to the (perpendicular) relationship between two lines or planes anywhere in space (cf. Maier 2006: 15). The English language also has numerous examples for possible interferences and misconceptions: e. g. parallel, diagonal, function, difference, etc. (cf. Pimm 1987: 7 ff.). In addition, it has been used to stress the necessity of linking learners ’ everyday experiences, individual relevance and abstract mathematical representations through talking, verbalizing and discussing in the classroom (cf. Bauersfeld 1995: 283). Mathematical understanding can only be activated, negotiated and consolidated through language in concrete (classroom) situations. The classroom language in this sense can be seen as a mediating language between the learners ’ everyday language/ experiences and the specifics of the discipline ’ s register/ representation (cf. Leisen 1999). The importance of language in mathematics education has also been reflected in education policy. The definition of mathematical competence areas by the KMK (2004) and in other federal adaptations (e. g. Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg 2004, Niedersächsisches Kultusministerium 2006) shows that the notion of a language-reduced environment in the mathematics classroom does not hold true. On the contrary, the mathematics classroom offers many opportunities for language work and language reflection in the process of mathematical language game technical terms and everyday language Mathematics 55 developing mathematical literacy and conceptual understanding. Mathematical literacy as defined by the OECD/ PISA (2003: 24) is an individual ’ s capacity to identify and understand the role that mathematics plays in the world, to make well-founded judgements and to use and engage with mathematics in ways that meet the needs of that individual ’ s life as a constructive, concerned and reflective citizen. This understanding of mathematics stresses that the subject should be closely related to the learners ’ everyday lives. In addition, it implies that mathematics is not constituted by symbols alone, but also by communicative needs. In terms of competence areas this means that specific mathematical competences in the sense of being able to deal with numerical aspects, calculations and other mathematical operations (numeracy) are embedded in more general competences in mathematics such as arguing, problem solving, communicating, displaying and modelling (cf. Figure 1). It is obvious that the majority of these competence areas do not solely rely on the mathematical language game, but require diverse language skills. In particular, arguing, communicating and modelling are directly related to language use since they demand abilities such as describing and reflecting upon individual problem solving approaches, structuring cooperative efforts and joint problem solving activities, giving reasons for mathematical explanations, and extracting relevant information from specialized texts and other sources (cf. KMK 2004: 7 f.). general competences in mathematics (mathematical literacy) arguing problem solving communicating displaying mathematics modelling specific mathematical competences (numeracy) Figure 1: Competence areas in primary education in mathematics (adapted from KMK 2004: 7) 4 Topics, terms and language structures The specific mathematical competences defined by the KMK (2004: 8) are concerned with five topic areas: (a) numbers and operations, (b) space and form, (c) patterns and structures, (d) quantity and measurement as well as (e) frequency and probability, which will be briefly characterized here. The topic ‘ numbers and operations ’ deals with decimal numeration (Dezimalsystem) up to 1.000.000 and the different relationship of numbers. Orientation in the decimal system includes operations such as rounding (runden) or ordering (der Größe nach ordnen). Basic arithmetic (Grundrechenarten) is another important part of this topical area comprising the mastery of addition, subtraction, multiplication, mathematical literacy mathematical competences numeracy numbers and operations 56 Chapter 5.2 and division. Mathematical vocabulary needed in this context are the numbers (even, uneven, 1-digit number, 2-digit numbers) as well as the prepositions describing the operations: plus, minus, times, divided by, and the outcomes: equals, is greater than, is less than. Typical vocabulary for task organisation would be: mental arithmetic (Kopfrechnen), analogy (Analogieaufgaben), rough calculations (Überschlagsrechnungen), inversion (Umkehraufgaben), decomposition (Zahlenzerlegungen). Since primary mathematics is rather concrete and embedded in real-life situations (such as shopping for groceries or cooking from a recipe) various word fields can be introduced and developed (e. g. at the supermarket, groceries, cooking utensils, ingredients) along with the mathematical substance. Of course, these word fields are very context-specific and depend on the content of the task. Since they pose a particular challenge to foreign language learners, much language scaffolding is needed to help the learners comprehend the text of the problem, identify the mathematical question that needs to be answered, create and solve a numerical equation, and finally explain their solutions and calculations. The topic ‘ space and form ’ is concerned with orientation, the ability to recognize and create geometric figures as well as with measurements of area and volume. One of the major objectives is the development of spatial sense. This includes insight into spatial relations in particular arrangements, plans, and elevations as well as relations between two-dimensional and three-dimensional views of buildings (customarily composed of cubes). The manual production of models (in this case: cubes and other geometric shapes) plays an important part in primary school teaching as well as handicraft activities in general. Apart from fostering the learners ’ dexterity, the production of such models generates a graphic illustration of geometric figures, their properties and symmetries. Important mathematical terms signifying two-dimensional shapes are: equilateral/ isosceles triangle (gleichseitiges/ gleichschenkliges Dreieck), rectangle, circle, square, rhomboid (Parallelogram) and trapezium (Trapez). Some terms are equally used in everyday language and as technical terms. For the sake of recognition, other shapes would perhaps only be named with expressions from everyday language: oval (math. ellipse), star (math. polygon), and diamond (math. rhombus). Important mathematical terms signifying three-dimensional solid figures are: cube (Würfel), cuboid (Quader), cone (Kegel), cylinder, pyramid, and sphere (Kugel). Angular shapes and figures are characterised by a particular number of angles (Ecken) and edges (Kanten) as well as lines of symmetry (Symmetrieachsen, also called mirror lines in the primary mathematics classroom). The edges of the cylinder and cone are curved (gebogen). Solid figures can be represented in a twodimensional way by means of nets, e. g. a net of cubes (if it was opened up, Würfelnetz). Areas, circumferences and volumes are worked out with the use of decomposition. They are calculated in terms of 1 cm²/ cm³, which serve as the prototypical areas/ cubes (Einheitsflächen/ -würfel). Vocabulary needed for task organisation and instruction would be expressions such as: to sketch, to draw accurately, to cut out, to fold (along a line), to build, to (de)compose, to assign to, to continue a (symmetric) pattern, to scale sth. up/ down (maßstäblich vergrößern/ -kleinern), to measure etc. The units of measurement mathematical vocabulary space and form vocabulary for task organisation Mathematics 57 needed in the metric system would be: (square/ cubic) centimetre, millimetre, and decimetre. The topic ‘ patterns and structures ’ focuses on principles in arithmetic and geometric patterns, such as series of numbers, numerical orders in tabular arrangements, and continuing geometric designs. In addition, it deals with functional relations and proportions such as quantity-price relationships. Typical tasks could be based on concrete graphic images, e. g. ‘ continue the shading/ colouring pattern ’ in a series of shapes, or on numerical patterns (1+1=2, 1+2=3, 1+3=4 etc.) to the point of highly abstract structures such as the order and certain qualities of numbers, e. g. ‘ explain why the sum of two adjacent numbers is always uneven ’ . The topic area ‘ quantity and measurement ’ aims at a sense of orientation concerning quantities and measurements in different domains (money, time, length, mass, volume/ capacity). This includes a good knowledge of standard measurements used in daily life (e. g. metre, litre, kilogram, hour) as well as the ability to represent and convert quantities in different formats (e. g. 0,71 € = 71 ct.). It also embraces simple fractions (half, quarter, three quarters) in context. Tasks related to real-life situations are solved by means of well-founded estimation and comparison. Additional practical skills are needed for dealing with different instruments of measure (scales, stopwatch, measuring pitcher etc.). The topic ‘ frequency and probability ’ is concerned with elements of combinatorics, random experiments as well as the collection and representation of numerical data in discontinuous texts (tables, graphs, and charts). Typical tasks would be considerations on the chances of winning in a game of dice. Basic terms needed for classroom discussion would be: im/ probable, sure, possible, and their respective nouns, (relative) frequency, prediction etc. 5 Resources for tasks and materials Specific CLIL material for the mathematics classroom is still scarce even though the Internet offers some resources (cf. the overview in Küppers & Schmidt 2006, also Dale & Tanner 2012). In 2009, a special issue of the primary English magazine Take Off! was devoted to a mathematical topic: Numbers and shapes around us (cf. http: / / www.takeoff-westermann.de/ heft/ 23710902/ Ausgabe-Juni-Heft- 2 - 2009-Numbers-and-shapes-around-us, accessed 5 September 2012). Among others it featured articles and teaching material on ‘ size and measurement ’ (Williams-Hahn 2009) and ‘ solid figures ’ (Walker 2009). The material developed by Williams-Hahn (2009) qualifies as a cross-curricular endeavour since it integrates typical activities from the foreign language classroom (listening comprehension and storytelling; see also Aristov & Haudeck in this volume), elements from social studies and biology (nutrition, growth, and development of a little guinea pig) as well as mathematical elements (measurements of classroom equipment and body parts). It can easily be used by rather inexperienced CLIL teachers since much of the potential teacher talk is provided on an accompanying CD-ROM. The material developed by Walker (2009) also relies on reference to the learners ’ daily experiences (the recognition of solid figures at patterns and structures quantity and measurement frequency and probability Take Off! 58 Chapter 5.2 the breakfast table), but with its focus on the qualities of particular geometric figures and mathematical terminology it is much more abstract and subjectspecific. However, with the help of one of the numerous storybooks dealing with shapes and solid figures, e. g. Shape by Shape (MacDonald 2009), The Greedy Triangle (Burns 2008), A Circle here, a Square there: My Shapes Book (Diehl 2007), Cubes, Cones, Cylinders, & Spheres (Hoban 2000), it could easily be turned into a downright cross-curricular experience that - in line with the research results by Mayer (2003) referred to above - obeys the basic principles of early foreign language teaching. A very useful resource in terms of subject-specific tasks and language as well as teaching methodology has been provided by the Centre for Innovation in Mathematic Teaching (CIMT) at the University of Plymouth (cf. http: / / www.cimt.plymouth.ac. uk/ projects/ mepres/ primary/ default.htm, accessed 5 September 2012). Originally intended for English-speaking primary learners of mathematics in non-CLIL settings, the comprehensive collection comprises detailed lesson plans, copy masters, and other teacher support materials from reception to grade 6 as well as some classroom videos showing the programme in practice. It also provides the learners with extensive practice material (including solutions), much of which relies on visual support, drawings and illustrations. Even though the material was developed for English-speaking children it has to meet the same challenges (particularly in the lower grades) a CLIL approach needs to be concerned with: the learners ’ limited abilities to read and write in the working language. The illustrations/ tasks are matched with rather simple phrases for instruction. Much of the accompanying verbal input to be provided by the teacher is explicated in the lesson plans. Of course, the CLIL teacher would still have to make some effort to develop a good strategy for language scaffolding, which includes a lot of repetition, visual support, and fixed phrases. In the mathematics classroom many language structures (e. g. asking how many-questions, even if-clauses) can be practised without being explicitly focused on by simply talking about the material and its mathematical content, e. g. “ How many triangles/ squares/ circles are in the illustration? How many shapes are there altogether? How many shapes remain if you take away all rectangles? ” In accordance with the general principles of early foreign language teaching, the learners would not have to be able to (re-) produce each word as long as their receptive competence is sufficiently developed for understanding the task. Hands-on material (i. e. a collection of shapes in the given example) could be used for scaffolding. The CLIL teacher would also have to make some effort to contextualize the mathematical content and provide references to the learners ’ experiences from daily life for the more abstract mathematical representations, but the CIMT data base certainly offers a great starting point for those wanting to embark on the adventure of introducing CLIL in the primary mathematics classroom. 6 Summary In conclusion, this chapter has shown that a CLIL approach to primary mathematics is a worthwhile endeavour. Research results show an age appropriate storybooks Centre for Innovation in Mathematic Teaching (CIMT) Mathematics 59 (mathematical) competence development of CLIL learners, foreign language competences being an additional gain. The importance of language in mathematics education has long been recognized in mathematics pedagogy and has been taken up in more recent papers in education policy. The KMK Bildungsstandards reflect the language learning opportunities even monolingual - let alone CLIL - classrooms offer. In terms of the practical implementation of primary CLIL, there is still some developmental work ahead of committed teachers in particular with regard to (language) resources and material. International resources such as the CIMT data base can be used as a starting point, but probably have to be tailored to the specific circumstances of the local context. This chapter has provided a basic collection of technical terms and classroom phrases for implementing a CLIL approach in the primary mathematics classroom. Review - Reflect - Research 1. Reconsider the arguments you have collected in the pre-reading activities. Which aspects were confirmed by this chapter? Which could be looked at from a different perspective? 2. Reflect on Leisen ’ s claim that all subject matter teaching in fact is language teaching by collecting examples from the different language domains referred to in the mathematics classroom. 3. Select a topic for the primary mathematics classroom and try to develop some teaching material as well as a strategy for language scaffolding. Use the video clips on the Centre for Innovation in Mathematic Teaching (CIMT)-website for inspiration (http: / / www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/ projects/ mepres/ primary/ default.htm). Further reading suggestions: Couve de Murville, S. & Lenz, F. (2012), Englisch als Unterrichtssprache: Lernstandserhebungen in einer immersiven Grundschule. In: Lenz, F. (Hrsg.), Bilinguales Lernen - Unterrichtskonzepte zur Förderung sachbezogener und interkultureller Kompetenz. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 79 - 102. van de Craen, P., Ceuleers, E. & Mondt, K. (2007 a), Cognitive Development and Bilingualism in Primary Schools: Teaching Maths in a CLIL Environment. In: Marsh, D. & Wolff, D. (eds.), Diverse Contexts - Converging Goals. CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 185 - 200. Viebrock, B. (2009 a), M² (Multilingual x Mathematical) - Some Considerations on a Content and Language Integrated Learning Approach to Mathematics. Forum Sprache, 61 - 79. Zaunbauer, A. C. M. & Möller, J. (2010), Schulleistungsentwicklung immersiv unterrichteter Grundschüler in den ersten zwei Schuljahren. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 57, 30 - 45. Magazine: Take Off! Numbers and shapes around us (2009) 60 Chapter 5.2 Chapter 5.3 CLIL - Teaching the Art: Physical Education, Art, Music Katja Heim This chapter discusses the benefits of teaching Sports (P. E.), Art and Music as bilingual subjects. It focuses on aspects of classroom management and on authentic language use in the respective subjects. Sample curricula from the German context provide an insight into possible applications of bilingual teaching and learning. The chapter ends with a project idea that combines elements of all three subjects. Pre-reading activities: 1. Why would one discuss different subjects, such as Music, P. E. and Art in one chapter? Think about aspects that all three of them have in common. 2. List aspects that make these good subjects to start bilingual teaching and learning with. 3. Imagine a regular monolingual Music, Sports or Art Class. Think of typical activities initiated by the teacher or fulfilled by the learners. Which of these activities could you transfer into the bilingual classroom? Which adjustments would be necessary? Structure of the chapter This chapter focuses on three aesthetic subjects, namely Sports (P. E.), Art and Music. All three subjects are discussed in an individual passage, starting with P. E. and ending with Music. In the last part of the chapter a project idea combines elements of all three subjects. 1 Introduction Physical Education (P. E.), Art and Music were not the first subjects to be taught in a foreign language, neither at secondary nor at primary level (Mentz 2010). At least for the early years of primary education this seems surprising, however, as these subjects offer many opportunities for authentic and holistic ways of learning language basics. They involve movement, rhythm and many concrete, visual elements (cf. Rymarczyk 2010). These are also key aspects of regular primary English teaching as this age group is still largely dependent on a holistic approach. What these subjects do have in common is that they provide a lot of help for meaning making, for memorizing language and opportunities for authentic communication in the target language, even though there are still differences regarding contents, aims, methods and classroom management. 2 Physical Education (P. E.) In the first years of primary education, P. E. is not primarily about high-performance sports but about supporting the enjoyment of movement and the general development of motor skills (Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung NRW 2012: 113). As many young learners are kinaesthetic learner types, physical activities are an important element of a school day, especially in the very early years of primary education when children are not able to concentrate for a very long time. Some authors would even go so far to say that children in general need movement in order to grasp the world (cf. Massler 2011), thus one could say that movement supports learning. In the same vein, action games, songs and stories that involve movement play a major role in English lessons at the primary level, partly because they support memorization, partly because they are vital for kinaesthetic learners. Total Physical Response (Asher 1986) is an approach that is highly popular for teaching real beginners as pupils solely need to follow teacher ’ s simple commands, such as “ walk ” , “ jump ” , “ turn around ” nonverbally. To make the instructions linguistically more complex, simple commands, such as “ run ” , “ stop ” , “ freeze ” , “ hop ” can be combined with adverbs, such as fast, slowly, happily or angrily, or with commands that request pupils to move like any kind of creature or vehicle. Commands can also include a direction, such as “ walk to the door ” or “ crawl to the middle of the gym ” . If pupils do not understand the commands unaided, scaffolding techniques (see Massler & Iannou-Georgiou 2012: 68, see also introductory chapter in this volume), e. g. by modelling movements, through mime and gesture or any kind of visuals can be used. An integration of activities, songs or games that children know from their English lessons seems to be a logical thing to do. These could be in the form of traditional games, such as “ Please, Mr. Crocodile ” or “ What time is it, Mr. Wolf? ” , or any other kind of adapted game with invented commands. Apart from the advantage of having more space in the gym than in a regular classroom, in a bilingual P. E. lesson there can be a bigger focus on the manner of how the movements are carried out. Moreover, verbal feedback can be given on newly introduced and more difficult movements, such as different types of skipping with a rope, or jumping techniques. Furthermore, social competences, such as turn taking, or fair behaviour in group games and team play can be practically and theoretically experienced. It is one of the major advantages of bilingual P. E. lessons that learners do not need to speak a lot in the beginning but mainly have to understand and carry out the instructions. In this way they have enough time to pick up language and to start using language chunks, such as “ It ’ s your/ my turn ” or “ the ball was out ” . Also, many sports that we play in Germany originate from an English speaking country. Many words haven ’ t even been translated into German, e. g. basketball, Total Physical Response TPR Reasons for Teaching P. E. in English 62 Chapter 5.3 hula hoop, tennis, break-dance, aerobics etc. While it is not desirable to do a lot of work on the history of the sports with young learners, one can still tell pupils where the sports come from and show old versus new photos of the game while it is played. There are other traditional games that are very similar to German games, e. g. dodgeball (Völkerball) that can be played according to the English rules. Integrating traditional elements from English speaking countries that are not so common in Germany, like Square Dance, can be fun and also foster (inter) cultural knowledge (cf. Ritzhaupt et al. 2011). Elements of P. E. lessons in NRW Sample Activities den Körper wahrnehmen und Bewegungsfähigkeiten ausprägen Create a body outline and label the part of the body, relaxation exercises with the help of stories das Spielen entdecken und Spielräume nutzen Play games, such as „ What ’ s the time, Mr. Wolf? ” and “ Please, Mr. Crocodile ” , follow (written) instructions of how to use different kind of play equipment (in a circuit, play traditional English games, e. g. dodgeball) Laufen, Springen, Werfen - Leichtathletik Follow instructions of how to walk, run, skip or jump (fast, slowly, forwards, backwards,. . .), play a game in which pupils have to run uphill, downhill (with ramps), jump over or into or run around obstacles etc. Bewegen im Wasser - Schwimmen Move like different kinds of animals, e. g. a whale, a dolphin, jellyfish, a starfish Bewegen an Geräten - Turnen Move in a circuit following (written) instructions Gestalten, Tanzen, Darstellen - Gymnastik/ Tanz, Bewegungskünste Create a dance / movements that go along with a song (possibly within a play) Spielen in und mit Regelstrukturen - Sportspiele See above (das Spielen entdecken und Spielräume nutzen) Gleiten, Fahren, Rollen - Rollsport, Bootssport, Wintersport Pupils fill in a quiz about road safety (more advanced pupils) Ringen und Kämpfen - Zweikampfsport. Follow instructions of how to interact, e. g. pull or push a partner Table 1: Elements of teaching P. E. in NRW (Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung NRW 2012: 118 f) sample activities CLIL - Teaching the Art: Physical Education, Art, Music 63 A lot of the activities in table 1 could also be part of regular English lessons, then with the primary goal to develop the language skills of students. In bilingual lessons, however, we have the dual goal to develop both, the motor functions and support target language skills of the pupils. Thus the activities turn into real tasks and the communication in English becomes more authentic. The integration of written language allows us to also work in more open learning scenarios, e. g. in circuits which we know well from P. E. lessons and which are now also common in other subjects. The original P. E. circuits have often been quite rigid in their structure, in that the pupils had to move from station to station in a circular way after a pre-defined time. In a more modern version the learners can work their way through stations with different instructions, preferably in a chosen order and at their own pace. For pupils who are not able to read yet, the instructions can also be recorded if enough audio players are available and can be used in combination with visuals. When it comes to classroom management, commands, such as “ if you are wearing something yellow, you can go to the changing room ” , followed by other colours, do not only make sense in order to repeat the colours but are also useful from an organizational point of view. In P. E. activities can be changed quickly and especially restless learners benefit from the opportunity to let off steam while they are still taking in the English commands, e. g. “ come to the middle of the room ” or “ freeze ” . When pupils get more advanced, individual pupils can take over the teacher ’ s role and give the commands, possibly while pupils are working in groups. One of the biggest challenges of bilingual P. E. lessons, especially in the first years of primary education, certainly is to stick to the target language and still manage the class successfully in the big gym with about 30 children who would like to run and play. The higher risks for health and safety certainly have to stay on the P. E. teacher ’ s mind who has to judge carefully when it is time to switch to the mother tongue (also see Mentz 2010). This really is only necessary in emergency situations but what feels like an emergency situation will differ from person to person. Everyone will have to follow their intuition here. One should keep in mind, that if code switching happens too frequently, pupils might not listen to the English instructions but will wait for the repetition in German (cf. Cameron 2000). The above described activities can all be used with very beginners in immersion and CLIL settings as well as in traditional P. E. or English classes which is reflected in numerous publications on teaching practice (e. g. Brune 2003, Gegier 2004, Dietrich 2011, Wiggermann 2011, Waas 2011, Schönau 2011). While there has already been supportive research on CLIL P. E. lessons at secondary level (e. g. Rottmann 2006), there is still a lack of research on P. E. as a bilingual subject at primary level. independent work in circuits classroom management 64 Chapter 5.3 3 Art At secondary level Arts is currently taught as a CLIL subject in eight federal states in Germany (Mentz 2010). Art can certainly be a highly demanding subject to be taught in two languages when it comes to analytic elements and high level discussions, e. g. about pieces of art, artistic styles or epochs. Rymarczyk strongly argues in favour of Art as a bilingual subject, however, because of the wealth of visual and haptic, i. e. tangible media. She cites a year 6 girl who says that she does not care whether Art lessons are in English or German as in Art she can understand everything due to the visual aspects (Rymarczyk 2010: 91). Rymarczyk also sees great potential for inspiring deeper cognitive processes and intercultural learning through the reception of pieces of art as these are culturally loaded and often provocative (2010: 89, 98 f.). In the first years of primary school teaching these analytic elements do not play a dominant role however. At this stage pupils are, on the whole, rather encouraged to experiment, to discover textures and other regularities, to mix colours, to describe impressions and to be creative before they start to make the first attempts at describing and copying the styles of artists (Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen 2008). This learning by doing approach (see Rymarczyk 2010: 92) makes Art a highly valuable bilingual subject for beginners. Very basic language that is frequently used in Art lessons are colours, all the materials the children work with, such as leaves, cardboard or glue, and anything they draw or create. Many of these words and chunks of language are normally introduced in a quite artificial way in English lessons. In Art lessons these words and sentence structures can be learned and used naturally in authentic situations. Once the pupils are to talk about their results, a lot of verbal scaffolding (Massler & Ioannou-Georgiou 2012), e. g. in form of supportive feedback or useful classroom language on posters, is needed, keeping in mind that if the help is too prescriptive and is referred to too often, learners become dependent on it and do not dare to be creative anymore. Classroom Language - Describing/ Evaluating pieces of art There is / there are. . . I can see. . . The artist uses. . . (a lot of dots, dark/ bright colours,..) I like it / this one / the one with . . . I don ’ t like . . . Table 2: Classroom Language reasons for teaching Art in English frequently used language CLIL - Teaching the Art: Physical Education, Art, Music 65 Classroom management in Art is very different from classroom management in P. E. While both subjects include instructions for practical work, require a listen and do approach and a lot of visualizations, we tend to have more phases with individual work in Art lessons. These phases are also certainly longer than phases of independent work in English lessons which are, in the first years, mostly teacher-centred with mostly short activities. Thus, the Art teacher has a lot more possibilities to walk around and talk to pupils individually. While pupils ’ contributions in English will only be simple and short in the beginning (see Rymarczyk 2010: 92) and will only gradually, over the years, become a more or less monolingual conversation in the target language, it is still authentic communication that is often lacking in traditional English lessons. The phase in which results are discussed is linguistically the most demanding for learners as they need to have quite a high level of English in order to be able to utter their views effectively. Thus, in the beginning there will need to be a lot of codeswitching and scaffolding (see Massler & Ioannou-Georgiou 2010: 68). Table 3 shows the different aspects of Art teaching that the curriculum in North Rhine-Westphalia requires and a number of aspects that go together with a bilingual approach naturally. Elements of Art lessons in NRW Sample Activities Räumliches Gestalten Pupils gather different kinds of materials and describe their characteristics (a lot of task support needed), pupils create props and decorations for a play Farbiges Gestalten Pupils mix colours and describe their effect, guessing game: choosing a displayed picture, describe it - others have to guess Grafisches Gestalten Talking about foreground and background (use famous pictures; mouse-man (Peltzer- Karpf & Zangl 1998: 11), illustrating stories, creating posters Textiles Gestalten Creating costumes (for a play) Gestaltung mit technisch-visuellen Medien Creating invitations, creating posters for a play Szenisches Gestalten Turn an English story(book) into a play/ musical, create a shadow play (see Bergner 2012) Auseinandersetzung mit Bildern und Objekten. Hear a story about the life and the style of famous artists and copy their styles (see Lepschy 2007 or Auer & Dahlin 2012); discuss the cover of a storybook as a piece of art, discuss the style of a certain artist Table 3: Elements of teaching Art in NRW (Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung NRW 2012: 102). classroom management sample activities 66 Chapter 5.3 Table 3 shows that even in the early stages Art lessons are certainly not only about drawing. They include, among others, elements of drama, of ICT (Information and Communication Technology), work with textiles and work on different artists. A lot of these aspects do not require a high level of abstraction or a high level of English but can be done with very little language being available on the side of the pupils. In a lesson in which year 1 pupils from the Kreuzgrundschule in Dortmund were asked to create a new summer display for the class window by their teacher Stefanie Spoo, very little language production was required from the learners. The lesson was bilingual in the true sense. Pupils spoke German to each other but accepted perfectly that the classroom language was English when the teacher was around. They only produced individual words of English themselves and some pupils merely showed their understanding by doing the right thing or giving an answer in German that made sense. The interaction throughout the lesson was authentic and natural, however, and the pupils were able to work on something challenging and suitable for their age group. Topic of the lesson: Creating a summer display Phase What is the teacher doing? What are the pupils doing? Objectives Pre: A Brainstorming on what is to be expected in a summer display Leading the discussion, holding up piece of sample display work Answering mostly in German, some pupils use words in English Subject: Activating prior knowledge concerning symbols of the summer and the composition of a display Linguistic: Reactivation and elicitation of known “ summer words ” , Encounter with new summer words in an authentic context While: Practical Work on the summer display Managing the composition of the display (next to, further left/ right, higher/ lower. . .), talking to pupils about their work in English, encouraging fast pupils to create additional, possibly more complex display work (e. g. a colourful fish) Gathering the pre-cut pieces of colourful cardboard, gluing the pieces together, handing the finished work to their teacher, talking only or mostly German Subject: Pupils construct products with the materials cardboard and glue Linguistic: Being able to follow instructions concerning the construction of the display, supporting pupils ’ ability to interact (nonverbally) during the joint construction of the product sample lesson CLIL - Teaching the Art: Physical Education, Art, Music 67 Topic of the lesson: Creating a summer display Phase What is the teacher doing? What are the pupils doing? Objectives Post: The class looks at the summer display together and evaluates the work. Moderating the conversation in English Commenting on aspects of the display (mostly in German) Subject: Evaluating the jointly constructed product during the plenary Linguistic: reinforcement of summer words, reinforcing pupils ’ skills of understanding (and using) evaluative language Table 4: Sample lesson: Creating a summer display 4 Music Music certainly is an integral part of primary English lessons - singing songs is fun, is an important part of all cultures (our own and the target cultures); it helps to remember chunks of language and can facilitate early language production (see for example Elsner 2010, Schmid-Schönbein 2008, Legutke et al. 2009). Of course Music lessons are not only about singing songs or raps (see Heine 2012). The curriculum in NRW, for example, consists of the parts making music, listening to music and working with music. For all three parts teachers can find easy activities for very beginners. Table 5 lists some elements that are part of regular English teaching at primary level such as finding movements for songs and singing songs as well as activities that are more CLIL specific such as the matching of instruments and sounds. These activities could be carried out at a very simple or a more complex level. Elements of Music lessons in NRW Sample Activities Musik machen Sing songs from other countries (using musical instruments alongside), record the group ’ s favourite songs Musik hören Matching instruments with their sounds (see Heine 2012 a), learn how the sound of an oboe is created (see Heine 2012 b), talking about one ’ s favourite music (with task support and verbal scaffolding) Musik umsetzen Find the right movements for the songs they sing, create their own stories alongside the music Table 5: Elements of teaching Music in NRW (Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung NRW 2012: 90 f) sample activities 68 Chapter 5.3 For bilingual Music lessons at secondary level Helms (2004) sees the common goal of pupils learning to listen in a visually dominated world. If pupils creatively use a song, e. g. by moving alongside, they have to listen carefully in order to be able to create a harmonious result. If they sing a song or talk rhythmically, they subconsciously learn about the rhythm of the English language. At the same time, Music lessons in English will tend to be more visual and kinaesthetic than Music lessons in German in order to aid comprehension, which can be seen as an advantage as well. 5 Cross-curricular bilingual project: stage production A project that combines elements of all three subjects is the joint preparation of a stage production, e. g. of Maurice Sendak ’ s “ Where the wild things are ” . The storyline is simple, as is the language. The protagonist is little Max, who is called a “ wild thing ” by his Mum and is then, probably in his dream, sailing to an island “ Where the Wild Things Are ” . It turns out that he is the wildest thing of all and after a good rumpus with the other wild things he suddenly feels lonely. When he smells a wonderful supper, he decides to sail home. Sendak ’ s picturebook has been widely praised for its artistic style (Stafford 2011) and its interdependent and slightly contradictory word-picture relation, i. e. it offers on the one hand an interesting artistic style to work with and on the other hand a lot of room for interpretation. The project idea that is sketched below can be used within a bilingual module in any school although oral and written text production can certainly be done with less task support and at a higher level in primary school classes with more intense language programmes. Although there are only two main characters in the book, Max and his mum, plus a storyteller, the book can be turned into a short play very well as we do have many so-called Wild Things on the fantasy island that Max is sailing to in his dream. Thus we have many additional characters that can speak and dance. Some Wild Things or an additional group of pupils can also create the background music that fits the scene. In the table below, some possible preparatory activities for the stage production are listed and matched with a subject. This does certainly not mean that the different steps have to be carried out within the lessons that are allocated to these subjects. As already said above, many of the activities below are a part of regular English lessons anyway. In the little time that is allocated to English in schools without a bilingual programme, many of the below activities could only be realized in a hurried way or not at all however. Thus, a joint project could improve the quality of the production immensely. reasons for teaching Music in English Where the wild things are project work CLIL - Teaching the Art: Physical Education, Art, Music 69 English Turning the book into a play (creating short dialogues), Rehearsing the play, discussing what the characters are like (in English, German or with any form or code-switching, depending on the language level) Art Creating masks, costumes and props, creating posters for the performance, discussing the pictures in Sendak ’ s book and decide what the masks have to look like (in English, German or with any form or codeswitching, depending on the language level) Sports / P. E. Creating and rehearsing a dance for the Wild Things, move like the different characters (with discussions in English, German or with any form or code-switching, depending on the language level), general preparatory drama work (see Stafford 2011 for a list of activities) Music Creating background music (discussions in English, German or with any form or code-switching, depending on the language level), general preparatory work (e. g. moving along different types of music) Table 6: Matching aspects of the project with subject areas How much English is spoken during the project is dependent on various factors, such as intensity of the bilingual programme, the year group in which the project is carried out (year 2, 3 or 4) and the level of abstraction the teachers want to reach. Some of the aspects that sound rather complex, such as the discussion on how the characters in the play might move, can be done in a very holistic way by just giving the commands “ Walk like . . . (holding up pictures of the characters in different parts of the book: Max, his Mum, the Wild Things) and then comparing the way in which different people realize the characters. This can also work with very little language on the side of the pupils who will if they are not advanced enough to use English, speak in German. 6 Summary This chapter focused on the benefits of bilingual Sports, Art and Music lessons, especially for the early years of primary education. It emphasized the holistic character of learning with frequent, naturally occurring visualizations and kinaesthetic elements. It also highlighted that the classroom management resembles the method of Total Physical Response which is one of the most popular methods for teaching young learners. With the outline of the project idea for turning the picture book Where the Wild Things Are into a play, it gave an outlook on possibilities of making the learning in these subjects even more authentic by working on a product that pupils present to the outside world and that they can be proud of. Review - Reflect - Research 1. Think about the classroom management in P. E. List at least five important phrases that might be used frequently and describe briefly how you would introduce them for the first time. project parts per subject English language input 70 Chapter 5.3 2. Discussing the pupils ’ work in class is certainly a challenge in bilingual Art lessons in the beginning. Imagine one concrete possible product that your year 3 pupils could produce and think of the task support and general scaffolding that you can provide during the evaluation phase. 3. Look at the list of possible activities for bilingual Music lessons in table 5 and add at least one more activity to each area. For further information have a look at the curriculum of your federal state, e. g. (http: / / www.standardsicherung.schulministerium.nrw.de/ lehrplaene/ lehrplaene-gs, accessed 15 November 2012) 4. Think of a different story that would lend itself to a joint stage production or alternatively think of a completely different project idea which could combine elements of all three subjects. Further reading suggestions Bentley, K. (2009), Primary Curriculum Box. CLIL Lessons and Activities for Younger Learners.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gegier, B. (2004), Bewegungsspiele in Englisch für Klassenraum und Turnhalle. Mülheim: Verlag an der Ruhr. Massler, U. & Burmeister, P. (Hrsg.) (2010), CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann. CLIL - Teaching the Art: Physical Education, Art, Music 71 Chapter 6 Assessment in Bilingual Classrooms Ute Massler & Daniel Stotz In this chapter you will get to know why assessment is relevant and important, but also specifically problematic in CLIL teaching. You will learn about important principles and forms of assessment and how they apply in CLIL assessment. Furthermore, you will get to know a list of assessment guidelines specific for CLIL assessment. Based on a series of concrete assessment tasks you will finally learn in this chapter how to analyse whether an assessment task actually assesses content or language or both as well as learn how to analyse and devise your own evaluation criteria and evaluation sheets for CLIL assessment. Pre-reading activities 1. Why should we be interested in evaluating pupils ’ performance and progress? 2. What are characteristics of good assessment? 3. How would you expect CLIL assessment to be similar or different to regular assessment in the subject content classroom and foreign language teaching, respectively, at the primary level? 4. How could you help pupils cope with using the foreign language in a CLIL assessment task? 5. What might be the foreseeable difficulties in carrying out CLIL assessment tasks? And how could you prevent them from occurring? Structure of the chapter Section 1 of this chapter starts out by describing how the authors ’ understanding of CLIL determines their conception of good CLIL assessment practice and what the specific challenges of CLIL assessment are. Section 2 then focuses on the key aims and formats of assessment in the primary school context, both generally and with reference to CLIL. Then, principles for assessment in CLIL classrooms are presented in Section 3. The next section illustrates these principles with the help of authentic assessment tasks developed by the CLILA project. 1 These tasks are also 1 Between 2010 und 2012 the authors collaborated on the project CLILA (CLIL Learner Assessment) (http: / / www.ph-weingarten.de/ clila-forschungsprojekt/ ). The project ’ s aim was to develop an enquiry and assessment tool to measure a primary school pupil ’ s content and foreign language ability in CLIL lessons. With the help of CLIL used to show how CLIL assessment differentiates between skills and content. This chapter concludes by presenting some possibilities in which pupils ’ performance in CLIL classrooms can be evaluated in a fair, integrated and transparent way. 1 Specific situation of CLIL assessment Presently, due to the different CLIL models in use, CLIL instruction can range between various forms of content and language integration. At one end of a spectrum of CLIL approaches, primary foreign language teaching might involve surface cross-curricular linking, where content is dealt with superficially and language learning is at the forefront; at the other extreme, as seen in immersion programmes, content learning dominates and language is sometimes not taught at all. The CLIL approach adopted by the authors is one in which language learning does not dominate content learning but where the language serves as a means of instruction and classroom communication (European Commission 2008, Genesee 1987). What is relevant, too, is that pupils are introduced to content that is new to them and has not been taught in their mother tongue before. Due to the dual focus on language and content, CLIL assessment needs to account for the goals and objectives of two different subjects, including knowledge, competences, skills, attitudes, and behaviour, for both language and content. Understandably, devising assessment tasks and procedures is a demanding task. One of the many challenges is to understand the impact of the mode of integration on the assessment outcomes: For example, if a child in a primary school assessment task in geography performs poorly, is it because of her limited understanding of the geography concepts or details, because she has not understood the question or because she cannot express her understanding clearly? (Kiely 2009) As CLIL programmes are becoming increasingly popular and sought after by school administration, parents and schools alike, it is of vital importance to address the question of appropriate and fair assessment in CLIL teaching. At present, CLIL assessment is faced with the following problematical aspects and inadequacies: 1. School legislation does not provide clear and coherent guidelines, especially not for primary CLIL instruction (e. g. this is the case in all federal states of Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Cyprus, etc.). 2. Methodological discussion of and research into assessing primary CLIL learners are virtually non-existent, with the exception of Echevarrìa et al. (2006), Massler (2010 a, b), Massler & Stotz (2011), Massler & Stotz (forthcoming) and McKay (2006). 3. The small amount of research on CLIL assessment that exists and that has been carried out exclusively at secondary I and II levels, points to serious problems and drawbacks in assessment practice. For example, assessment methods and teachers, descriptors, evaluation scales and examples of assessment tasks were developed and tested in the classroom. The results are published in Massler & Stotz (forthcoming). The project was financed by the Internationale Bodenseehochschule. dual focus of CLIL assessment: language and content CLIL assessment: problematic aspects and inadequacies at present Assessment in Bilingual Classrooms 73 practices often do not reflect teaching practice (Vollmer 2002: 115) and are generally dealt with in very diverse ways (Fehling & Finkbeiner 2002). 4. Very often teachers, researchers and course book authors come from a foreign language teaching background and are not usually trained in the CLIL content subjects ’ assessment and teaching practices. Because of this, most CLIL instruction still takes place in foreign language teaching lessons. Also most teaching materials in CLIL primarily focus on teaching and assessing language competences and not on the content of CLIL lessons (cf. Steiert 2010). Yet, pupils and teachers alike benefit from continuous and systematic assessment through varied forms of formal and informal assessment. Teachers who are new to CLIL receive more concrete information on when and how learning occurs within their CLIL lessons if they regularly assess pupils ’ understanding of lesson content. They can use feedback from their pupils ’ task outcomes for further lesson planning as well as for evaluating their own work in regard to finding out how effective their teaching has been or how successful their chosen methodology or materials were. All of this will eventually help them to feel more confident in their CLIL teaching. Furthermore, due to the relative novelty of the CLIL approach, teachers are often fairly insecure about how to assess CLIL learning. This is understandable considering that assessment in CLIL is, perhaps, one of the least developed areas in CLIL programmes (cf. Massler 2010 a, b). For pupils too, CLIL is a fresh and demanding process and thus, it is extremely important that they are given feedback as regards their progress, their efforts and the techniques or strategies they use in their learning. In the following sections, three fundamental aspects that make up assessment in CLIL classrooms will be discussed: - assessing content learning - assessing foreign language learning - the integration of content and language assessment Another area which is part and parcel of the rationale of most CLIL programmes is the development of intercultural awareness and the promotion of intercultural education. Due to limitations of space, this area cannot be dealt with in great depth here. 2 Assessment aims and formats Despite the scarcity of research, assessment in CLIL is not completely new terrain (cf. Short 1993, Vollmer 2002, Fehling & Finkbeiner 2002, Müller 2008). By assessment, we understand all methods used to gather information about children ’ s knowledge, abilities, understanding, attitudes, and motivation. Classroom assessment can include a wide range of options - from taking notes on pupils ’ behaviour while doing an experiment to carrying out standardized tests. Assessment in CLIL teaching at pre-primary and primary level basically follows the principles of good assessment practice valid for teaching young learners in any context because of the special characteristics of growth, literacy and vulnerability potential benefits of CLIL assessment principles of good assessment 74 Chapter 6 that children bring to CLIL learning and assessment (for the following cf. McKay 2006: 1 ff.). Young learners are often very eager to demonstrate their accumulated knowledge, but quite frequently they might also tend to be more sensitive to criticism or failure than older learners because their self-image is not stable yet. A considerable diversity in growth and development, a wide range of experiences, learning styles and attitudes that children show is also characteristic of primary classrooms. Moreover, primary school teachers need to carefully consider their learners ’ cognitive and overall maturity level as well as their level of linguistic competence in their first (and possibly, second) language. For instance, it would be an inappropriate task for children in the first or second grade to draw a correct sketch of a wasp, as their drawing skills are most likely not sophisticated enough. Another requirement of sound CLIL assessment practices, means and methods is that they should reflect the specific educational context to which they are applied (cf. Winter 1999). What is valid and good practice in one context may not be appropriate elsewhere. For example; it is not permitted to teach writing or to carry out written tests in EFL learning in the second grade in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany (Verordnung über die Schülerbeurteilung in Grund- und Sonderschulen § 2 Abs. 4) (Massler 2010 b). Assessment formats can be roughly divided into two categories - formative assessments and summative assessments (Ioannou-Georgiou & Pavlou 2003: 4). We will start by setting out the differences but also the similarities between formative and summative assessment. Formative assessment is the assessment that takes place during a course or a programme of study. Very often it is informal and carried out while teaching. As its main aim is to provide feedback to teachers and learners on how the course is going, how pupils progress individually and on how learning can be improved during the course, it is considered an integral part of learning (McKay 2006) and a learning experience in its own right. For example, if a teacher notices that some pupils have difficulties understanding a content concept in the CLIL lesson, she/ he can review the concept together with this group or ask them to do a specific review task. Accordingly, formative assessment activities such as focused and systematic observations, collections of learning documents (task sheets etc.) and the use of portfolios help pupils to monitor their own progress. The use of qualitative feedback (rather than scores) for both pupil and teacher that focuses on the details of content and performance is characteristic of formative assessment (Huhta 2010). Formative assessment is primarily used for “ pedagogic purposes though increasingly, teachers are asked to observe children ’ s performance over time and from these observations devise a summative report ” (McKay 2006: 22). Formative assessment is especially important as CLIL learners with limited language skills devote considerable energy to figuring out what the teacher is saying or what the text is telling them at a basic level (cf. Echevarrìa et al. 2006: 168; Snow 1990: 161). Pupils might often find it difficult to evaluate which pieces of information are important to remember. Therefore, reviewing, summarising, clarifying the concepts or the information taught must be an integral part of each CLIL lesson. This can be done by using quick checking activities interspersed in the characteristics of young learners assessment: methods and formats formative assessment Assessment in Bilingual Classrooms 75 lesson so as to ensure that the pupils are keeping up with the information/ concepts taught. Assessing pupils ’ understanding throughout the task stage of a CLIL lesson and especially at the onset of a task is also of greatest importance (cf. Massler & Ioannou-Georgiou 2010: 72). Ideas for checking understanding informally, quickly and effectively can be found later on in this chapter. Summative assessment occurs at a particular point in time, most typically at the end of a learning unit and is used to evaluate the effectiveness of an instructional programme. Most often its goals are to make a judgement of learner competency, to generate a grade that reflects pupils ’ performance and/ or to identify instructional areas that need additional attention. Summative assessment may be based on results of internal tests (final exam, end-of-unit or chapter tests) or external tests (statewide or national tests) or on a “ teacher ’ s summative decisions after observations of the child ’ s performance during the year ” (McKay 2006: 22). Whereas formative assessment focuses on improving pupils ’ learning, summative assessment is often carried out for purposes of external accountability such as parents and school administration information. Results of summative assessment may have consequences in terms of promotion to another school level or streaming pupils into different tracks. Due to the present lack of clear guidelines for CLIL assessment and the fact, respectively, that in many contexts allocating grades for content and language integrated learning within the same subject is not asked for or might not even be permitted, summative assessment does not play such an important role at primary level. Yet, teachers might use summative assessment formats such as tests to gain important insights into their pupils ’ learning and the success of their teaching. In other contexts, it may be a controversial issue if subject-related assessment results can enter a grade given for English. Table 1 below lists assessment formats that are typically used with formative and summative assessment. Formative assessment formats Summative assessment formats Anecdotal records Final exams Quizzes and essays Chapter or end-of-unit tests Lab reports Statewide tests Instructional strategies that can be used formatively include the following: observations, questioning strategies, self and peer assessment, student record keeping National tests (IGLU, HarmoS) Portfolio International tests (PISA) Collections of learning documents (task sheets, etc.) Table 1: Assessment formats typically used in summative respectively formative assessment summative assessment 76 Chapter 6 In order to maximize the efficacy of summative and formative CLIL assessment, several factors must be considered. CLIL teachers can use this checklist to evaluate their assessment procedures: Reliability - to what extent are results reliable? To what extent would the child get the same results if another teacher or assessor were to assess their work, or if they were to assess it in the same way again the next day (McKay 2006: 113)? Validity - to what extent is there validity? To what extent do tests assess what they purport to assess? To what extent are the interpretations that teachers and assessors make on the basis of an assessment meaningful and appropriate (McKay 2006: 113)? If a CLIL teacher wants to assess what a child has learned in CLIL lessons, it is important to make sure that the CLIL test assesses the child ’ s language and content learning and not only its language or content learning. Language and content learning can be assessed in one task or in separate tasks. Variety - to what extent do assessment tasks vary (McKay 2006: 113)? True/ false and selected-response test items are limited in scope and focus on testing each pupil ’ s capacity for rote memorization (Kellough et al. 1999). It is important to be aware that these formats are also prone to fostering test response techniques rather than content knowledge and language skills. However, assessment should include all three domains of learning: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. In addition, assessments of the cognitive domain should reflect, at least partially, its higher levels, such as synthesis and evaluation. Hence, CLIL teachers should use a variety of assessment techniques, such as portfolios, cooperative research projects, papers, and performance tests (ibid. 1999). Moreover, using varied assessment tasks minimizes the risk that children with weaker language competences are put at a disadvantage. For example, decoding the written language of a paper-andpencil test on the function of the eye might possibly hinder pupils from demonstrating what they have learned on the subject level whereas carrying out and explaining an experiment orally on the same topic might not. Authenticity - to what extent is the assessment task authentic (McKay 2006: 113)? The question here is to what extent the assessment task reflects the kind of language children use in the CLIL classroom, or need in situations related to the specific content outside the classroom. Furthermore, CLIL teachers would naturally want assessment tasks to be as authentic as possible. Paper-and-pencil tests have little if any authenticity to the child ’ s world whereas making assumptions on the basis of observations and language support, e. g. about what will happen to an object that is put into water as part of an experiment, has high authenticity for young learners. Practicality - to what extent is the assessment task practical? Are there sufficient resources for the task to work in the assessment situation, and with young learners (McKay 2006: 113)? This is a criterion usually more relevant in CLIL teaching than in foreign language instruction as the subject content traditionally employs more varied working and assessment formats such as observations, simulations or hands-on-experiments. Therefore, CLIL teachers need to analyze if the amount of resources (time, space, energy, materials) is justified with regard to the practicality of the assessment task. factors that constitute adequate assessment Assessment in Bilingual Classrooms 77 Positive impact - to what extent is the impact of the assessment positive? On the learners? On ourselves as teachers? On parents? On society (McKay 2006: 113)? The impact an assessment activity potentially has on teaching and learning is called washback (ibid.: 116). On the positive side, when assessing both language and content CLIL teachers might increase pupils ’ motivation to learn the language and the content simultaneously. Yet, on the negative side, teachers might also discourage pupils with weaker language skills when assessing language and content in an integrated way. In any case, if content and language integration is to function as a teaching and learning approach, suitable assessment procedures must be part of the picture, and they need to consider both content and language learning objectives. In this way only can there be positive programme washback. 3 Principles for CLIL assessment This section discusses important issues for assessment in CLIL. A number of principles are proposed which have been developed in light of current theoretical and research foundations and good practices in pupil assessment as well as by the experience and insights gained through PROCLIL and CLILA. 2 They will guide and support CLIL teachers balancing the dual focus of their teaching and the challenges that accompany such a task (for a more detailed description see Massler 2010 a, b and Massler & Stotz forthcoming). It can be argued that good assessment practice should reflect teaching practice with regard to what and how something has been taught (Ioannou-Georgiou and Pavlou 2003). In the case of CLIL it follows that content that was taught in the L2 needs to be assessed in the L2 as well. Having discrete assessment criteria for each domain of competence, that is, assessing language and content independently (Bachman & Palmer 1996 quoted in McKay 2006: 257) helps to obtain the most useful information about the child ’ s language ability and his/ her content knowledge, respectively. This means that while content and language can still be assessed in one task, separate descriptions of the expected competence as well as clear evaluation criteria for each area, language ability and content knowledge, are needed. Separate evaluation formats (points, marks or descriptions) may be used for each component, or one mark may be given for the total performance (McKay ibid.). Nonetheless, even if the intent is to separate language and content in order to be fair, this is not completely possible. Children ’ s spoken or written responses on a topic may not show their true language ability if they do not know much about the topic (cf. McKay ibid.). Section 4 below will point out some ways in which integrated assessment tasks can still tease out individual abilities. 2 The EU funded PROCLIL project (providing guidelines for the implementation of CLIL in pre-primary and primary education) ran from 2006 - 2009 (http: / / www.proclil.org, last accessed 17. 12. 2012). The overall aim of PROCLIL was to develop and investigate aspects of CLIL methodology, find ways to successfully implement CLIL in pre-primary and primary education and to design teaching materials and an initial and in-service course for teachers. integrating content and language 78 Chapter 6 Assessment tasks need to enable learners to show exactly what they have learnt while enabling them to use the L2. If pupils lack adequate L2 skills to do so, they should either be supported to respond through non-verbal means or allowed to use their L1. The assessment tasks themselves may offer a limited amount of language support, e. g. as labelled pictures or sentence starters. Sometimes a mixture of L1 and L2 may be allowed in order for the pupils to express their content knowledge. Language use in the test can be indicated through the use of flags or through written instructions for each specific task. It could be argued that primary school children in CLIL programmes should be allowed to choose the language in which they respond to an assessment task, if the assessment task is targeting content knowledge exclusively. However, in many cases it might be advisable to adapt the task so that linguistically weaker pupils are in a position to perform adequately using strategies and non-verbal means. Overall, given that there are different CLIL models in use, CLIL assessment needs to reflect the specific balance between language and content input of the respective classroom. That does not only mean that the more content has been taught in the L2, the more can be assessed in the L2 as well. It also affects the proportion of assessment tasks that address pupils ’ language respectively content knowledge (see further Massler 2010 a, b). Pupils should be informed about what is expected of them in terms of content and language aspects of performance, and assessment tasks should be transparently constructed to reflect these classroom practices. Taking the learners ’ developmental stage, such as their age, cognitive development and language competence, into account is a key issue in CLIL teaching. In CLIL teaching pupils might often know the content on which they are being assessed, but might not be able to express it in the foreign language. It can be argued that the younger the child and/ or the lower the level of the child ’ s language competence, the greater the need for assessment tasks to be dealt with either in the mother tongue or with as little language as possible. Of utmost importance here, among other means, is visualization. Also, if listening to and understanding content in the L2 is what is being assessed, then the instructions and questions could well be in the L1 (the school language). Furthermore, the following assessment adaptations in range, time, level of support, difficulty and type of response may be employed (Echevarrìa et al. 2006: 175; cf. also Massler 2010 a, b): Range: Adapt or vary the number of items learners are expected to complete. Determine percentages of correct responses based on the number of items assessed. Time: Adapt or vary the amount of time the learner has for completing a task, such as providing more processing time and/ or breaking tasks into manageable chunks. Unless there is a requirement to have a timed test, allowing additional time should not impact a pupil ’ s score or grade. Difficulty: Adapt the skill level, type of problem or task, and the process for how a learner can approach the task, such as allowing a calculator, giving simplified instructions or using gestures such as pointing and miming. Thereby, the content requirements are not reduced, while the teacher makes it easier for pupils to demonstrate their knowledge or understanding. taking learners ’ developmental stages into account Assessment in Bilingual Classrooms 79 Level of support: Adapt the amount of scaffolding provided during assessments, by reading the task aloud, by translating the instructions if necessary, by providing additional visualization or by allowing the use of a dictionary. Product/ type of response: Adapt the type of response the learner is allowed to provide, such as permitting drawings instead of a written answer, a hands-on demonstration, a verbal, and, if necessary, a translated response. The importance of assessing pupil learning at systematic and regular intervals has already been highlighted above. Thus, below, a number of informal assessment procedures are described. They offer several advantages and can be used with CLIL learners of all ages: they can be carried out in between and/ or at the end of lessons or teaching units and are not time-consuming to carry out or to evaluate, and provide teachers and pupils with instant feedback (cf. Massler 2010 a, b). Thumbs up/ thumbs down: Generally, this is used for responding to questions that elicit “ agree/ disagree ” responses. It can also be used for yes/ no questions or true/ false statements. Older pupils may be more comfortable responding with “ pencils up/ pencils down ” . Pupils can also indicate “ I don ’ t know ” by making a fist, holding it in front of the chest, and wiggling it back and forth (Echevarrìa et al. 2006: 172 f.). Number wheel: A number wheel is made from tag board strips held together with a round-head brass paper fastener. Each strip has a number printed on it, with 0 - 5 or 0 - 10, or a-d, depending on teachers ’ needs and pupils ’ ages. Pupils use their individual number wheels to indicate their answers to questions or statements that offer multiple-choice responses. Possible answers are displayed on the board or perhaps overhead transparency and the teacher asks the questions or gives the statements orally (Echevarrìa et al. 2006: 173). For example, if you are teaching a lesson on ducks in the third grade, you could write the following on the board: 1 grass, 2 snails, 3 birds, 4 flies. Each child has a number wheel and you say, “ Show me what ducks don ’ t eat ” . Pupils then find the number strip 3, and holding their number wheels in front of their chests, they display their answers. Number 1 to 3 for self-assessment: Teachers could use this quick and easy activity to have pupils self-assess the degree to which they think they have met a lesson ’ s content and language objective. At the end of the lesson, as teachers review the objectives with the pupils, teachers ask them to indicate with one, two, or three fingers how well they think they met them: 1 = I didn ’ t meet the objective 2 = I didn ’ t meet the objective but I made progress toward meeting it 3 = I fully met the objective (Echevarrìa et al. 2006: 174). Of course, these sentences need to be explained beforehand or given in the L1. An easier way for very young learners is to use smiley faces. The goals evaluated will need to be presented to the young learners clearly before a teaching unit. At the end, the children decide which smiley face represents them and how they feel. Smiley faces can be given to the children in the form of cards which they can pick up and show the teacher or they can be used in the form of surveys where the children can draw the face which represents how assessing at systematic and regular intervals 80 Chapter 6 they feel (smiling/ happy, sad, angry or indifferent). Such surveys can be easily used to assess pupils ’ attitudes towards their learning experience as a whole. Learners ’ attitudes towards their lessons are key to their success so it is important to carry out frequent informal assessments as to how they feel about their CLIL lessons. Outcome sentences: At the end of a lesson or a teaching unit, a teacher posts sentence starters on the board or transparency such as: “ I wonder . . . ” , “ I discovered. . .. ” , “ I still want to know. . .. ” , “ I still don ’ t understand. . . ” , “ I still have a question about. . . ” Depending on pupils ’ language level this might need to be done in the L1. Pupils then, individually or in pairs, finish the sentence starters and return them to the teacher for evaluation (Echevarrìa et al. 2006: 170 f.). Collecting “ I know/ I want to know ” expressions from pupils through sticky-notes: This technique can be used at the beginning of a unit to find out what pupils already know and what they would like to know about the topic in question. At the end of the unit, teacher and pupils read again what pupils had written down at the beginning and find out what was correct or maybe wrong as well as what they now know or which of their questions remain unanswered. Sticky-notes can also be used at random intervals to give the pupils a chance to say what they liked or what they didn ’ t like during the lesson. The headings can be “ Today/ This week I liked . . . ” while the opposite board might be “ Today/ this week I didn ’ t like . . . ” This can either be done systematically or randomly but it is a good way for the pupils to have a say about the lesson, its contents and techniques while the teacher achieves feedback as to how her lesson planning and methodologies were viewed by the pupils. 4 Differentiating between assessing skills and content Both formative and summative assessment of learner achievements can be made more accountable if it is based, on the one hand, on a thorough knowledge of classroom learning processes and the learning objectives that have been set for a particular group of learners, and, on the other hand, on some sort of framework that shapes the overall educational system in a region, state or larger entity such as the European Union. A background of competence descriptors such as the one offered by the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe 2001) or the lingualevel instrument (Lenz & Studer 2007) facilitates the task of setting manageable goals that are formulated positively, as can-do statements. It also helps to chart learners ’ progress over the long process of language learning within and beyond schools with its six levels from A1 to C2, where B1 is often seen as a relevant level for pupils at the end of compulsory schooling. However, one of the drawbacks of these schemes is that they cater for integrated learner accomplishments only in limited ways. Content knowledge is often treated as marginal or arbitrary, and there are few descriptors that take account of the educational context. Most competence descriptors refer to everyday situations outside school. A2.1 When I listen to someone else talking to a salesperson in a shop, I can understand common words or expressions. (Lenz & Studer 2007: Ho15) last surveys CEFR competence descriptors Assessment in Bilingual Classrooms 81 A2.1 I can have a short telephone conversation, which I have prepared in advance, with people of my age, to arrange to meet them, for example. (Lenz & Studer 2007: MI25) These descriptors do not specify the content dimension. Learning objectives in CLIL type classrooms require a more specific focus on the here and now of pupilpupil and pupil-teacher interaction about learning content. As a variety of learning arrangements are used such as experiments, film and photo presentations, creation of products in handicraft etc., the scope of activities tends to be wider than in foreign language classrooms. A feasible way to plan for a CLIL type assessment task would be to analyse the goals for a learning unit both from the linguistic and the content perspective. The CLILA model provides an explicit framework for planning and designing CLIL assessment tasks. The model has been derived from existing standards that describe basic competences (Bildungsstandards) in primary school subjects including science and foreign languages used in the Swiss and German educational context as well as the Common European Framework (Council of Europe 2001) and related instruments. It comprises three dimensions (cf. Massler & Stotz forthcoming): - Aspects of competence in the foreign language, referring to communicative and linguistic competences including skills such as listening and speaking - Aspects of competence in dealing with subject content including cognitive and discourse operators such as identifying, measuring, describing etc. - Thematic perspectives on subject content, e. g. knowledge about living beings and their habitats. While the model cannot be expounded in full detail here, it is worth noting that designing new tasks for assessment and using or adapting existing tasks can benefit from a consideration of these dimensions. For test developers and teachers it is important to keep in mind that integrated content and language-related abilities can put higher demands on learners than conventional assessment tasks in one or the other subject. A combination of communicative and subject-content competence descriptors could form the basis of an assessment event. Here is an example to illustrate the point: As part of a learning unit on the properties of air, pupils carry out an experiment (see Fig. 1). The task involves reading a set of instructions which are illustrated with photos. Reading comprehension is checked and ensured by having the pupils match the pictures to the various steps of the instructions. Then, the learners actually do the experiment and observe what happens to the water level in the glass. The goal is to describe and explain that the paper does not get wet because there is air in the glass. a model for integrating language and subject competences a sample assessment activity 82 Chapter 6 Explore characteristics of air You need these materials: a clear glass a big clear bowl a piece of paper Look at the pictures of this experiment. Match the sentences to the pictures. Write the correct number in the box. 1 2 3 4 Turn the glass upside down and plunge it straight down into the bowl of water. Scrunch up your piece of paper. Fill the bowl with cold water. Push the paper into the bottom of the glass. It shouldn ’ t fall out. Now, try out the experiment. Can you see the water level in the glass? What happens to the paper? Why? Explain. Figure 1: Worksheet for the assessment task “ Explore characteristics of air ” In doing this task, learners first mobilise their communicative resources, in particular the receptive competence to understand a series of instructions in English, possibly using guessing and other strategies. Subsequently, they exhibit the ability to carry out actions according to the given instructions, and finally, they Assessment in Bilingual Classrooms 83 need to draw conclusions, using their perceptive and cognitive resources. The expected answer would include a combination of the following: “ The paper isn ’ t wet. ” / “ The paper is still dry. ” / “ There is air in the glass. ” / “ Water cannot get in. ” / “ There is air. ” Ways in which such assessment tasks can be evaluated are discussed in Section 5 below. A description of this task, shown in Table 2, includes specifications for aspects of competence and the content theme as well as competence descriptors for language skills, content knowledge and the ability to use that knowledge in a partially new situation. Language skill: Reading Competence level: A1.2 Aspects of competence: Gaining insights from real-life objects and phenomena Gaining insights from coded information Content and spatial structuring and modelling Theme: Planet Earth: Spatial processes and changes Subtopic: Natural elements and phenomena on Earth (light, air, water; day and night . . .) Descriptors for language/ communication: I can roughly understand simple picture stories and illustrated descriptions if I can guess a lot from pictures. Descriptors for subject content: To describe what has been observed in a simple experiment To match pictures of objects and living beings with given descriptions To carry out an experiment on the basis of simple illustrated instructions. Type of assessment Formative, summative Table 2: Profile of the assessment task “ Explore characteristics of air ” The description is based on the original German designations from the CLILA project (Massler & Stotz forthcoming) which covers aspects of competence, thematic areas and includes descriptors from lingualevel (Lenz & Studer 2007) as well as a range of descriptions of content-oriented activities. The following factors have to be taken into account if feasible, valid, varied and practical assessment activities are to be constructed: 1. To what extent can the pupils be expected to be familiar with the content material? Have they been exposed to the same topic in CLIL lessons, and have they had a chance to engage in similar activities so that they can transfer knowledge and skills to the new situation? 2. Is there a combined focus on content-related and communicative performance or does the task involve different consecutive steps, each with a focus on language/ communication or content? 3. Does the assessment task allow for different types of learners to perform at their best? Does the input (text, listening material) offer enough information, phrased in comprehensible ways? Is there visual support (photos, drawings)? 84 Chapter 6 Can additional verbal support (sentence starters, prompting by the teacher) be used (possibly with due consideration in the evaluation)? The following case study serves to illustrate these basic and practical concerns. You might want to consider the questions 1 - 3 above while going through the case. A class of 2 nd graders has been dealing with the topic of seasons on a number of occasions throughout the school year. 3 They have been using the first choice CLIL materials, The Seasons (Littlejohn & Scofield 2005) and made their own observations of the weather and the typical features of seasons. The subtopics they have covered include: - How the year changes - How the weather changes - Weather reports and symbols in the newspaper - Making a rain gauge - Winter: How does your life/ the life of animals change? - Animals in winter: how they keep warm and find food The teacher would like to provide some formative assessment to check progress after the first four subtopics. She uses the following assessment tasks: 1. Weather forecast The pupils listen to a weather forecast for a town high up in the mountains and tick the correct weather symbol for each day, and they also note down the temperature. They guess what season the forecast is for. The pupils get photos of a landscape at different times of the year and have to write the correct season. The pupils look at weather symbols and decide whether statements are true or not (e. g. “ You can go swimming ” , “ You can ’ t fly a kite ” ). 2. Wind and weather The pupils get a worksheet with four photos of landscapes, combined with a thermometer showing a specific temperature. They have to choose from 16 sentences on different coloured cards and find a matching statement of each colour for every picture (e. g. “ It ’ s raining. It ’ s cold. There are many clouds. There ’ s a storm. ” ). The pupils stick the sentences on the worksheet below the photo. 3. Build your own weather vane In groups, the pupils build a simple weather vane according to a set of written illustrated instructions. In order to do this, they have to match each step of the instructions to the correct photo (see Fig. 2). 3 The school which collaborated on the CLILA project is a private German-speaking school with an international outlook. Starting in Grade 1, three lessons per week covering various sciences, social and cultural topics are taught in English in a modular CLIL approach. a case study of CLIL learner assessment Assessment in Bilingual Classrooms 85 Build your own weather vane Look at the pictures. Match the sentences to the pictures. Write the correct number in the box. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Screw the shorter wooden stick on the longer stick with the screwdriver. For your weather vane you need: a pair of scissors, a screwdriver, some glue, two wooden sticks, a screw, two washers and a plastic sheet with a triangle and square on it. Glue the triangle and square on the shorter wooden stick. Take the screw. Put a washer on it. Then put the screw through the shorter stick and place the other washer underneath. Your weather vane is finished. Take it outside. Cut out the triangle and square of the plastic sheet with a pair of scissors. Now, build this weather vane yourself. Figure 2: Worksheet for the assessment task “ Build your own weather vane ” 86 Chapter 6 The teacher devotes two lessons to this series of assessment tasks. She notes that the pupils need extra explanations, and that they have some problems keeping the weather symbols apart. She is content to see that the pupils can work on their own and do not copy what others are doing. The second task would work better if she demonstrated an example using a transparency and the overhead projector. The lesson with the weather vane works well thanks to her thorough preparation. There is a lot of work involved, but she observes that the pupils enjoy putting together the weather vane and don ’ t even seem to notice that this was a reading comprehension test to start with. In other words, the precondition for a contentoriented activity is a receptive task. She notes in passing that this could be a problem for linguistically weaker pupils, who may not have understood the instructions. But all the weather vanes seem to be working alright. After the second sequence of lessons about the current season of winter, the teacher needs some information about her pupils ’ achievements and their individual competences for the reports that will be sent to their parents. She selects the following tasks in order to assess her pupils ’ reading, listening and speaking skills in summative fashion. 1. Animals in spring - Pupils watch four silent videos about animals and their behaviour in spring (e. g. a dormouse waking up from hibernation). Between the two viewings, they read descriptions of the animals ’ activities and then match them to the numbered videos. - The stronger pupils also get to answer a question about something they have to infer (Who or what is in the hole in the tree? - The woodpecker chicks, which can ’ t be seen). 2. The Alpine marmot - The pupils listen to a portrait of the marmot, an animal they haven ’ t yet heard about, but which has a similar hibernation pattern to the dormouse. They complete an answer sheet, deciding between two sentence endings (e. g. When in danger. . .they can whistle very loudly / they walk away slowly). - The teacher reads the audiotext out herself rather than using a recording (because the pupils are more familiar with her voice). 3. Some clothes for a new classmate - This is a speaking test that the teacher can carry out with pairs of pupils in a separate room while the others are engaged in a silent activity. - The pupils exchange information and make a shopping list for the new classmate, Georgia, who has moved to their town from a tropical place. Each pupil has photos of different items of warm and cool clothing on their handout. - In the last part, the teacher plays the role of Georgia ’ s mother and prompts the pupils to give reasons for their choices. In summary, this teacher feels that it was worth devoting time and effort to the assessment process and to use an established framework for measuring the pupils ’ performance against the objectives set (criterion of reliability). Having dealt with sample tasks conclusions from the case study Assessment in Bilingual Classrooms 87 the content material in class, she knew which lexical items and phrases the pupils had been familiarised with. Where the assessment task brought new words, she provided support, e. g. in the form of a drawing of a child with a kite (criterion of validity). None of the test items was a simple repetition of something already done in class, but there was always an element of transfer involved, e. g. from describing animals in winter to observing them in spring (criterion of variety: higher levels of the cognitive domain). At this level of schooling (2 nd graders with less than two years of English), pupils are not yet very familiar with testing settings. The formative assessment activities allowed a gentle approach to the situation (criterion of positive impact of assessment). Hands-on tasks such as the construction of a weather vane ensure that children do not get too nervous, and language comprehension is supported by visual information and practical work (criteria of variety and practicality). As the subject matter is not extremely complex, it is more easily possible to integrate language and content. For instance, in the task “ Some clothes for a new classmate ” , it is sufficient to argue that the weather in Bermuda is warmer in winter without referring to the physical reasons for the earth ’ s differing climate zones. While the organisation of speaking assessment tasks can be time-consuming and demanding, this teacher does not regret having gone to the trouble. First of all, there is a favourable washback effect on classroom teaching. Talking time for pupils can be boosted by oral pair-work activities. If they are also part of tests, they are made more worthwhile. Secondly, the possibilities for the teacher to prompt pupils individually and support them with additional scaffolding allow them to perform at their best. In turn, the teacher may perceive individual differences more easily and assess pupils with respect to their own progress rather than exclusively against the yardstick of class performance. In order for summative assessment to be valid, reliable and practical, it is necessary to have clear criteria against which to measure the pupils ’ performance. This is especially true for spoken and written responses, which cannot be predetermined. Requirements and instruments for evaluating performance will be presented and discussed in the next section. 5 Evaluating pupils ’ performance As we have seen in Section 4, assessment tasks must be planned carefully with an eye to the teaching and learning content of the lessons they relate to and with reference to some underlying model of competence which includes both aspects of linguistic abilities and subject knowledge. Most commonly, the expectations as to the pupils ’ desirable performance are framed as learning objectives. Assessment task profiles such as shown in Table 2 above would include reference to language level, skills use, aspects of subject content and language knowledge, as well as procedural points, e. g. how to prompt pupils to speak to each other in a paired task. In addition, you would want to ensure before you run the assessment activity how you are going to evaluate the pupils ’ results. Informal formative assessment familiarising learners with assessment assessment task profiles 88 Chapter 6 relies strongly on observation and note-taking. In classroom learning situations, pupils are often observed at different stages within a task and need not therefore be assessed according to the same criteria. On the other hand, when pupils are given the same assessment test, we need to know what the expected performance is and what counts as a top performance, a sufficient effort or a fail. If, in a heterogeneous class, two versions of the same task are used, knowledge of the differing task demands should flow into the evaluation. In this way, pupils using less support could be evaluated more favourably because they mobilise their competences more autonomously. There are broadly three ways in which summative assessment items can be constructed, with differing consequences for how evaluation criteria can be set up. The item-response format can be fixed, structured, or open-ended. In fixed formats, there are normally clearly defined and unambiguous answers. Examples are true/ false or multiple choice questions or picture-text matching activities. In structured item-response formats, several answers are usually acceptable, but within narrow limits. For instance, if words have to be ordered to form a meaningful sentence, two or three versions, but not more, may be possible. In both of these formats, points can be assigned to correct answers to each test item, and the questions can be weighed so that items which are judged to be at the desired level of performance can be assigned more points than those that are above that level. The pupils ’ scores can be tallied and counted up so that percentages or marks can be computed. For instance, in a test with a maximum of 18 points, we could say 50 % or 9 points are needed for a performance deemed to be sufficient (a pass). If a teacher feels that what is being tested represents to a large degree what has been taught and does not involve complex transfer abilities, she might decide that 60 % (or 11 points) are needed for a pass. Fixed-format tests are most frequently used when receptive skills are assessed or numerical answers are expected. It is obvious that as a response to reading or listening input, pupils should not be required to write lengthy answers or give oral statements, because if they did have to do that other skills would also be involved. With content-based fixed-format test items such as picture-matching tasks, linguistic skills are not assessed, or answers given in the school language (e. g. German) carry an equal number of points. On the other hand, assessment tasks may be constructed in such a way that a range of pupils ’ responses are possible and acceptable. This is called an openended item-response format. Examples of responses are short paragraphs, compositions or free oral responses in a role-playing activity. This format is more often associated with the productive skills of speaking and writing than with the receptive skills. The term open-ended, however, does not mean that it is impossible or inadvisable to set up succinct evaluation criteria. It is common practice among language testing bodies to operate with descriptions of expected performance. Assessment instruments such as lingualevel (Lenz & Studer 2007) provide examples of such descriptors which are in turn related to the can-do statements of the CEFR. Examples of criteria in assessing speaking performance include fluency, range of vocabulary or pronunciation. The criteria are normally ranked in scales, e. g. a four-point scale ranging from “ very good ” to “ good ” and test-item formats for summative assessment open-ended itemresponse format Assessment in Bilingual Classrooms 89 “ sufficient ” to “ insufficient ” . Content-based open-ended test items tend to include higher-order cognitive operations such as giving reasons or stating hypotheses. It is important that it is clear to test takers, parents and teachers what constitutes a “ good performance ” in any of the criteria, and thus, the scales and scores should not be separated from the descriptors. Examples of rating scales for written and spoken performance in primary school level assessment tests are offered by the Explorers Assessment Packs (Hunn et al. 2008 - 2009) and the first choice Assessment Pack (Achermann & Ramsey 2011). However, their criteria relate to language aims only. A more complete approach to evaluating CLIL achievement, taking account of content and language skills and knowledge, can be found in Massler & Stotz (forthcoming). In the following, two examples for evaluating learner performance are presented and discussed. They refer to the sample assessment tasks presented in Section 4 above. 1. Weather forecast The first part is centrally a listening comprehension test with some reading necessary to complete the test items. What is also tested is the subject-content related skill of “ completing a diagram if the most important key words are given ” . Each correct answer (weather symbol, temperature) is assigned 0.5 points, the maximum is 7 points. A score of 4 points is deemed as just sufficient. In the second part, content knowledge is tested (e. g. knowledge of the concepts “ autumn ” and “ spring ” ) as well as the ability to “ analyse a state of affairs and to decide for behaviour which is adapted to a given situation ” (e. g. “ strong wind ” à “ You can fly a kite ” ). 7 points are maximally awarded for appropriate choices in this part. The two parts of this assessment task thus carry equal points, meaning that the language and the content shares of the assessment are weighted equally. It is of course correct to say that each of the two parts covers a combination of content and language knowledge in themselves. 2. Some clothes for a new classmate This speaking task is divided into three parts. In Parts 1 and 2, the two pupils have to exchange the information they have about clothes suitable for a cold climate and to compile a shopping list together. 6 points are awarded to both of them if they end up with a list containing all the items of warm clothing (a scarf, gloves, a warm jacket, a pullover, a hat, boots). In Part 3, which requires the pupils to give reasons for buying warm clothes, the pupils have to show, on the one hand, that they can analyse and explain a state of affairs and then “ give reasons, in simple form, why they have selected something ” . 3 points are given to both pupils if together they have provided 4 or more reasons for their choices (e. g. “ Without warm clothes, Georgia might get sick/ catch a cold ” ). So, 9 points are awarded for the subject-content related aspects of this integrative assessment test. In addition, the teacher rates each pupil separately with the help of a rating scale to assess his or her speaking performance. The details of the 4-point scale can be found in Massler & Stotz (forthcoming). The criteria include vocabulary range, accuracy (linguistic structures and pronunciation) and fluency (text features and initiative shown to maintain the conversation). evaluation criteria for summative assessment 90 Chapter 6 In order to be manageable, the rating scale for oral performance should not list more than three criteria. An advantage of the speaking assessment task shown here is that the content-specific performance of the pupils is tallied separately from the speaking skills assessment. The teacher can simply keep the shopping list as a record and make ticks for each argument given in Parts 1 and 2 and, either during or after the interview, mark the relevant descriptions in the rating scale for speaking. For example, for the criterion of fluency/ text features, a good performance would be described as follows: clear and comprehensible, very short contributions, interspersed with short pauses; occasionally, prompting by a partner is necessary to maintain the conversation; the candidate shows some initiative. Similar principles can be used in the assessment of written skills. Again it is advisable even in integrated content-and-language oriented tasks to isolate the content and the language components of a test item in the construction of the task as well as in the evaluation criteria for the sake of transparency. Observations while piloting such tests have shown that linguistically strong pupils (e. g. bilinguals) may often do well on the language side but, for whatever reasons, show a lack of knowledge, accuracy or cognition in the content-related part (cf. Massler & Stotz forthcoming). Conversely, weaker learners sometimes arrive at good results by using strategies or stored content knowledge and accordingly provide good answers despite lower language skills. It is very helpful for less experienced teachers to study reference samples of pupil performance in order to see how rating scales are actually applied to concrete learner performances in open-ended formats. Instruments such as the lingualevel tool, the Assessment Pack for Explorers and the guide to CLIL learner assessment edited by Massler & Stotz (forthcoming) provide such samples, together with commented ratings. This section has shown that, with careful test construction and anticipation of likely learner performance, it is possible to run integrated content and language assessment tests that are valid, reliable and fair. They meet the challenges set out in Section 1 to a considerable degree. To conclude, it is important to state once again that assessors need to emphasise what pupils can do at this stage of schooling rather than what they cannot do. Systematic and well-designed learner assessment is apt to work against the prejudice that CLIL is an overly complex approach to subject and language education and by definition overtaxes primary pupils. The piloting of the assessment tasks in the CLILA project has shown that this is definitely not the case. If difficulties do arise, well-documented assessment experiences can also serve the purpose of fine-tuning CLIL programmes and projects to the actual potential of pupils, teachers and schools. 6 Summary This chapter has focused on the need for assessing learner progress and competence both in content and language learning. It was demonstrated how CLIL assessment differs both from the evaluation of learners ’ competence in foreign language classes and in subject teaching. The dual focus on content and language rating scales for spoken performance Assessment in Bilingual Classrooms 91 calls for a systematic reflection on the objectives to be achieved and on the learners ’ age-related and mental preconditions. On the whole, this chapter has delineated ways in which the dual focus of CLIL on content and language can be pursued in teaching and learning through formative assessment to summative testing. The model presented favours CLIL assessment practices in which aspects of competence in dealing with subject content and aspects of language competence are partly assessed separately and partly in combination. By using these methods, teachers and schools show that they can be held accountable for the objectives they have set and the degrees to which their learners have reached them. Review - Reflect - Research 1. Browse through the chapter again and search for five important principles of integrated content and language assessment. Describe and/ or discuss how they differ from or are similar to assessment in content teaching/ foreign language teaching. 2. Imagine you as a teacher are in a situation such as the teacher described in the case study in Section 4. What are the particular challenges you are faced with if you want to assess CLIL pupils ’ performance both in formative and summative ways? Find solutions to overcome these challenges. 3. In groups, select different sets of primary CLIL materials, e. g. first choice, Explorers (both Lehrmittelverlag Zürich, www.lehrmittelverlag-zuerich.ch > Lehrmittel-Sites, accessed 30 September 2012), Essential Science/ Essential Science Plus/ Top Science (Santillana/ Richmond, www.richmondelt.com > CLIL, accessed 30 September 2012), or materials from the PROCLIL project (www.ph-weingarten.de/ englisch/ Studium-und-Lehre/ CLIL_Unterrichtsmaterialien.php? navanchor=1010078, accessed 30 September 2012). Study the content and language aims for the teaching unit you have selected. Design integrated assessment tasks according to the principles and methods outlined in this chapter. Think about how you can evaluate pupils ’ performance fairly and transparently. Optionally, use assessing criteria and rating scales (e. g. those published in Massler & Stotz forthcoming). Further reading suggestions Echevarrìa, J., Vogt, M. E. & Short, D. (2006), Making Content Comprehensible for Elementary English Learners. The SIOP Model. Boston etc.: Pearson. Massler, U. (2010), Schwierig aber machbar: Leistungsbewertung im CLIL-Unterricht der Grundschule. In: Massler, U. & Burmeister, P. (Hrsg.), CLIL und Immersion: Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann, 131 - 142. Massler, U. & Stotz, D. (Hrsg.) (forthcoming), Handbuch zur Leistungserhebung und Leistungsbewertung im fremdsprachlichen Sachfachunterricht (CLIL) der Primarstufe. Trier: WVT. McKay, P. (2006), Assessing Young Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 92 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 On the Road to Nowhere? The Transition Problem of Bilingual Teaching Programmes Kristin Kersten & Andreas Rohde This paper discusses the challenges of acquiring English across different institutions from preschool to secondary school with regard to both regular language education that starts at primary level and bilingual programmes which may be offered at various stages in the learners ’ course of education. It is suggested that content-based bilingual programmes with no specific language curricula allow for a smoother transition across institutions than languagecourse-oriented approaches. The latter are problematic because the higher the level of institution, the more strongly the problems of transition are perceived. Additionally, programmes with a form of regulation within their transition processes encounter fewer problems than programmes without regulated transition. This is supported by the results of a survey that was conducted across more than 100 preschools, primary and secondary schools. Pre-reading questions 1. In very general terms, i. e. without a specific focus on foreign language teaching or bilingual programmes, collect different factors that may be relevant in the transition from preschool to primary level and from primary to secondary level. 2. Compare a regular language-course-oriented English teaching programme to an immersion programme (partial or full, with at least 50 % of the subject matter taught in English). What are the specific challenges of each programme in terms of transition? 3. Given that a particular secondary school is not capable of establishing an immersion programme for primary school children who have been in such a programme, discuss possible English teaching models that could accommodate those primary school children. 4. Think of measures that can be taken by preschools or schools in order to facilitate the transition between the institutions. Structure of the chapter In the following sections three different levels of transition are discussed. The chapter starts with changes and challenges that young children are confronted with when they first enter a preschool institution such as kindergarten. In a second step, two models of transition from preschool to primary school level are introduced and discussed. Different scenarios for a smooth transition with regard to bilingual education are illustrated. The chapter continues with the question of how pupils coming from a bilingual or traditional primary school can be accommodated at bilingual or regular secondary schools. The chapter concludes with a study illustrating how the different preschools and schools react to the challenges of dealing with previously acquired skills, knowledge and experience of their learners. (The term preschool, in this paper, is used for programmes with no formal instruction.) 1 Introduction The nationwide introduction of English at primary school in 2003 (except for the Saarland) has not only given rise to the discussion of how the foreign language is ideally taught at primary level but also highlighted the question of how the transition from primary to secondary level has to be created. If the students have already been taught English for at least two years, at the secondary level the curricula have to be adapted to this two-year experience and we have to recognise the students ’ foreign language experience instead of starting from scratch, pretending the secondary level is the genuine start. This discussion has revealed two different teaching concepts in foreign language teaching (FLT): Whereas appropriate teaching at primary level tends to be actionand communicationoriented ( “ using language to learn it ” , Howatt 1984 as quoted in Richards & Rodgers 2001: 155), teaching at secondary level, especially at German grammar school, still is very strongly structureand course-oriented (lehrgangsorientiert, “ learning the language to use it ” , cf. ibid.). There are still a number of grammar school teachers who claim that English at primary school does not generate at least comparable language skills (Lernstände) among the children and that this urges them, the grammar school teachers, to start afresh (Sommerschuh 2003: 110, see also below). This problem is reinforced by the fact that, more often than not, English at primary level is taught by teachers who have not studied English for second/ foreign language teaching and do not have the necessary knowledge of how English or any other foreign language is best introduced at primary level, very often underestimating the children ’ s abilities (Kolb & Mayer 2009: 16, Rohde 2012: 37 f.). At first sight, the transition between bilingual programmes appears to be even more problematic to handle. On the one hand, the programmes also comprise the preschool level so that the transition between preschool and primary level has to be focused on (as a case in point, the transition from the parental home to a preschool programme must not be ignored either). On the other hand, the programmes are individually adjusted to the respective institution ’ s resources and are therefore very difficult to compare to each other (Kersten et al. 2010) so that every discussion about transition is necessarily individual. two concepts of FLT transition 94 Chapter 7 2 From the parental home to preschool The attendance of a preschool is usually not mentioned within the problem area of transition because in that case we are not dealing with the transition from one educational institution to another. Yet this first step out of the shelter of the parental home into an educational institution requires our attention. What Jürgens & Standop (2011: 393 f.) suggest for the transition from preschool to primary school therefore also goes for the introduction to preschool: The child has to orient towards new roles, new relationships, and new social bonds. This transition requires individual adjustment processes as a reaction to entering a modified learning and living world. This new orientation must not be underestimated. Most of the parents have experienced their children ’ s reluctance to be left to their own devices during their first days in a completely new environment. At the beginning, a transition measure therefore often is a parent ’ s presence in the preschool for at least a few hours. If the child comes into a bilingual group in which one of the two preschool teachers uses English exclusively, this is a further challenge, at least for some time. The child does not only make contact with other children and adults, who will be part of the children ’ s future daily life. She/ he is also introduced to a new means of communication, a new language. In most of the cases this does not present a problem as usually German is also spoken in the preschool group, but the fact that single individuals of the groups or staff exclusively use English can lead to critical and stressful moments for the children. In this vein, Tiefenthal (1999) reports that a girl burst into tears when the English speaking preschool teacher described a scene in a book with the words, “ look, this is a frog ” . The girl was at first not able to accept that familiar concepts could be referred to with different names hitherto unknown to her. The preschool supports the transition from the parental home into the preschool group in that the new educational institution builds on domestic experiences. Thus there are toys and numerous opportunities to play. In addition, all the daily routines such as brushing one ’ s teeth, having breakfast, going for a walk etc. are continued in the preschool and give security to the children in this new environment. Thus, in a bilingual programme, the only new component may be the new language, and the children find out quickly that they do not have to understand every single utterance because, especially during the first months, the new language accompanies the preschool routines, which are well known from the children ’ s domestic experience. Another important factor for a smooth transition might be the presence of the other, more experienced children, who take the bilingual environment for granted. Observing the relaxed and natural handling of everyday situations in two languages will have a reassuring effect on the new child. 3 From preschool to primary school School entry is a cut in the child ’ s biography in which the child and her/ his family have to cope with changes according to status, role and identity, which are new roles, new relationships, new social bonds bilingual programmes in German preschools On the Road to Nowhere? The Transition Problem of Bilingual Teaching Programmes 95 accompanied by intense emotions (Faust et al. 2011: 40, Kucharz et al. 2011). In addition, the concept of a school readiness paradigm (Schulfähigkeits-Paradigma) which is unilaterally targeted at the primary school level (it highlights socioemotional independence, cognitive and physical prerequisites) may lead to stigmatization and negative selection. In this respect, many children are disadvantaged, for in their upbringing, school readiness has not been viewed as significant - especially if they have not attended a preschool programme (Jürgens & Standop 2011: 409). Even if the construct of school readiness has recently been viewed in close connection with the eco-system model discussed in the next section, it remains a hurdle and a threshold that decides whether or not a child is admitted at primary school (ibid.). Two distinct models of transition from preschool to primary school level are discussed by Carida (2011): The skills model and the eco-system model. The skills model highlights the demands made on the children upon school entry, i. e. for a momentary event, and is therefore very similar to the German idea of school readiness. It comprises the general skill of learning, which, according to Jürgens & Standop (2011: 402) is often understood in a narrow way in the sense of the ability to store new knowledge. What Jürgens & Standop see as more significant is the acquisition of procedural knowledge and the ability to deal with the unknown, e. g. to handle unfamiliar situations. Instead, at primary school level, the children are believed to already have acquired a number of skills/ abilities (social adjustment, rule acquisition, consciousness etc., cf. Dockett & Perry 2001: 3, see also Luttropp 2010). These abilities, however, should not be seen as skills that have to be specifically developed for primary school level, but for every level of education (Kucharz et al. 2011). In other words, the different institutions do not require distinct skills or abilities. Rather, in every new step the child takes, these capabilities are further developed. There is no sequence or order of distinct skills but rather they form a continuum and are fostered throughout the child ’ s learning biography (ibid.: 409). For Jürgens & Standop, a school readiness paradigm (see also Eckerth et al. 2011) has to be replaced with a child readiness paradigm (Kindfähigkeitsparadigma) which bridges the gap between preschool and primary school. In the child readiness theory the tables are turned: An institution has to be ready to accommodate children with different skills and abilities (ibid.), a notion compatible with the recent claim for inclusive learning of both “ typically developing ” students and learners with special needs. One possibility to realize such a paradigm would be the so-called educational establishments (Bildungshäuser) which accommodate children from ages 3 - 10 (Strätz et al. 2007, Drexl 2011). The national curricula (Bildungspläne) which were introduced in all of the federal states of Germany between 2002 and 2006 (Faust et al. 2011: 40) could represent the basis of a comprehensive development. The eco-system model, on the other hand, looks at the total amount of factors which are part of the transitional process, thus also regarding the parties involved in the children ’ s education process: the family, preschool, primary school and wider society. These parties are viewed as co-constructors of the child ’ s education (Faust et al. 2011: 40). In the eco-system model there are no a priori skills/ abilities formulated for the child to acquire. Rather, the model calls upon a tight school readiness paradigm the skills model the eco-system model 96 Chapter 7 cooperation of the involved parties in order to pave the way for a smooth transition across the institutions. Cooperation measures comprise mutual visits by both children and preschool staff and primary school, information events for parents, advanced training for staff etc. (Faust et al. 2011, Giallo et al. 2010, Luttropp 2010). Cooperation between preschool and primary school still is irregular and selective. One important question is: What inhibits cooperation measures? According to a survey (Faust et al. 2011), preschool teachers assess the measures as more important than primary school teachers. It is assumed that the preschool staff wants to be treated as partners at the same level with the primary school teachers - something which has as yet not been realized on a larger level (ibid.: 58). Another observation is that not all preschools are part of cooperation activities. A reason for this may be that those preschools whose children later go to many different primary schools (so that there is no larger number of children entering the same primary school) do not seek cooperation or are not contacted for any cooperation measures. One problem in this regard is that the involved parties have the duty of discretion so that data cannot easily be exchanged (ibid., see our survey below). There is no specific transition problem for regular preschool and primary school programmes with regard to the onset of English as it is only introduced in the third grade at primary level (with the exception of Baden-Württemberg and North-Rhine Westphalia where it is introduced right at the beginning of the first year and in the second half of the first year, respectively). However, there are four other scenarios with regard to English: Some children move from an English-free preschool programme into a partial immersion programme which features some/ most of the school subjects in the foreign language (German as a subject is usually taught in German). Other children move from a bilingual preschool programme into a partial immersion primary school programme. A third scenario would see children come from a bilingual preschool into the regular primary school with English either beginning in grade 1 or 3. The latter scenario is one that especially parents try to avoid as they fear that acquired skills in the second language will soon be lost again. There is no conclusive research available yet as to when and to what extent once acquired language skills may be forgotten or lost again. Studies focusing on the relearning of a second language by children in a naturalistic setting suggest that skills which were believed to be lost may be revived and even extended within a short period of time (Rohde 2002). This evidence, however, must not be seen as a justification of discontinuous bilingual programmes. The fourth scenario concerns languages other than English, which are not part of the German primary school curriculum. If the programme is continued from preschool to primary school in one way or another, similar scenarios as described above will take place. If, however, the preschool programme is discontinued in primary school, the gap or the cut-off of the foreign language will be much longer/ stronger than in the case of English, and the effects on the acquisition of this particular language cannot be foreseen. As mentioned above, one significant skill (that may be easily overlooked) is handling “ the unfamiliar ” in terms of novel situations in which children have to quickly decide how to react to the specific demands. This is a skill that is clearly important for both preschool and primary school contexts and would be part of cooperation measures four different scenarios for the transition from preschool to primary level the skill of handling the unfamiliar On the Road to Nowhere? The Transition Problem of Bilingual Teaching Programmes 97 the above sketched continuum view. There is some preliminary evidence from a bilingual preschool project that suggests that bilingual children accept unfamiliar situations (including unknown words and objects) more readily than their monolingual peers (Rohde 2005: 207). In more specific terms, one problem that may arise in bilingual programmes between preschool and primary school level is the pressure that may be felt at preschool level to achieve certain foreign language aims dictated by the primary school. This pressure from the educational institution which is one level above preschool in the education hierarchy should by all means be avoided. As formal foreign language teaching at primary school level is deemed unsuitable it is all the more inconceivable for preschool children. We believe that foreign language drills and targeted practice of language forms easily lead to exhaustion and have the potential to kill the children ’ s positive attitude towards the new language. These measures are not believed to be appropriate although, in fact, there is at least one workbook available for preschools which follows, at least partially, a formal linguistic approach by including a formal grammar section which, tellingly, happens to be inaccurate in places (Bollig & Bollig 2006: 26). The issue of inappropriateness points to a general problem of transition which needs to be discussed. As yet, there obviously is no integrated curriculum of English neither for regular FLT nor for partial immersion programmes which would distinguish between preschool, primary and secondary level. Such an integrated curriculum would necessarily run into the danger of putting each educational institution lower in the hierarchy under pressure by suggesting a certain skill level to build on. This, however, is extremely problematic as it has become clear that the characteristics of the three (four, if the parental home is included) levels involved in our discussion differ from each other considerably so that no curriculum is conceivable which would see the acquisition of English as a linear integral process. It becomes clear that we face problems as long as we envisage FLT as a language course in which every involved educational institution is supposed to cover a fixed number of lessons in that course. Rather, it becomes apparent that every eco-system has its own inherent features so that none of these systems should be pushed by the needs of the systems higher up in the hierarchy. In other words, neither the eco-system view nor the skills/ abilities view allow for an approach where a second language is taught according to a view of formal progression. This suggests that intensive bilingual programmes may in fact avoid the problems typical of transition by simply focusing on the children ’ s respective environment, their current interests, subject matter areas and, more generally, their cognitive and emotional development. Bilingual teaching is no method that caters for the peculiarities of a particular age. It is a teaching concept that sees the language as an expression of the learners ’ states of mind and not of different grades of grammatical or vocabulary knowledge. Through bilingual teaching, the second language accompanies the children ’ s development rather than determining it through fixed language curricula. In other words, we cannot avoid general problems of transition due to different eco-systems and different required skills in subjects such as maths, history, geography or social sciences. Through bilingual teaching, however, which is not language-course-oriented but content-based and pressure from above foreign language learning as a linear process 98 Chapter 7 communicative, the subject of English does not present an additional barrier for transition as it practically merges with the other subject matter. 4 From primary to secondary level The fact that there is no fixed curriculum for German preschool education renders the transition from preschool to primary level relatively easy as the above mentioned skills and “ child readiness ” views do not require any specific factual knowledge. This is different between primary and secondary level. The secondary school expects the children to have acquired certain skills and factual knowledge so that the primary schools may feel the pressure to cater for the higher level in the hierarchy. At secondary level, however, English teachers complain about very heterogeneous English competences. The secondary level teachers ’ expectations are rarely met. 65 % of these teachers deem English at primary school level pointless (Böttger 2009: 16 f.). In the course of the EVENING study in North-Rhine Westphalia, 35 % of both primary and secondary school teachers reported that there was no contact between the schools or that contact was rare (65 %) (Thürmann 2009: 9 f.). Kolb (2011: 168) assumes that only 20 % of the English teachers at primary level have a university degree for teaching English. Those primary school teachers without a degree (understandably) feel less well informed about teaching at secondary level. In addition, there is a correlation between the foreign language competences of the students and the primary school teachers ’ qualification (ibid.: 168 f.). In addition, there is a discontinuity in terms of teaching methodology, learning environment and academic demands. At primary level, language teaching is communicative, multi-sensory and action-oriented (handlungsorientiert) with a focus on oral language and listening comprehension. Written language has only a supportive role even though its significance is gradually increasing (Serrurier- Zucker et al. 2009: 130 f.). This situation is different, partly to a very high degree, in bilingual programmes, and particularly in immersion. At secondary level, teaching is more form-focused and rule-oriented and is still based on grammatical knowledge (a fact that is also clearly reflected in the secondary school textbooks; cf. Keßler & Plesser 2011). The divide is even more pronounced by the fact that, at secondary level, English has the status of a major subject, which does not suggest that FLT has to be more form-focused but certainly more reliable in terms of teaching and learning aims. That such goals and methods do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive has increasingly been stressed in recent literature on language pedagogy, which promotes autonomous, action-oriented, meaningful and contentand context-related language learning for all levels of language teaching (e. g. Piepho 2003). A wider implementation of successful principles known from content-based language teaching and bilingual programmes, which have long taken these approaches into account, might help bridge the gap between these seemingly different goals. The EU project Pri-Sec-Co (primary and secondary continuity in foreign language teaching) involving seven European countries has come up with a the primary school teachers ’ qualification teaching methods at primary and secondary level Pri-Sec-Co Project On the Road to Nowhere? The Transition Problem of Bilingual Teaching Programmes 99 set of twelve bridging tasks and a host of different materials that have been developed to promote continuity at both the end of primary and the beginning of secondary school (Serrurier-Zucker et al. 2009: 131, Kolb et al. 2012). It is doubtful, however, whether secondary schools in Germany are genuinely willing to modify or adjust their teaching approach: In the DESI study (Deutsch- und Englisch-Schülerleistungen International), carried out between 2001 and 2005, 10 - 15 % of the students at both secondary modern schools (Realschulen) and grammar schools (Gymnasien) received scores higher than average and well beyond the requirements of the curricula (Klieme 2006: 2). This reinforces the perception especially of the grammar school as an autonomous and selfsustaining system, less so for education policy makers and the public but rather from the point of view of those working and teaching at grammar schools (Bludau 1998: 157, cited after Kolb & Mayer 2009: 18). When students have been in a bilingual programme at primary school level, the question is how the students can be accommodated at secondary level. As the immersion students ’ competences in English are much higher than in traditional English teaching programmes at primary level, it is obvious that these students will encounter problems in a regular English programme at secondary level, which often means a fresh start anyway as the teachers have problems assessing the children ’ s skills acquired at primary level. This opens another can of worms, namely the question of how to diagnose and/ or assess learners ’ target language skills in general. One approach has been suggested by Keßler (2006), Pienemann & Keßler (2007) and Keßler & Liebner (2011). Their approach is based on linguistic profiles yielded by an expert software called Rapid Profile (for a full discussion see Keßler 2006 and Keßler & Plesser 2011). Ideally, the primary school bilingual programme is followed by a similar programme at secondary school level (Wode 1995). Especially in the past twenty years, many bilingual branches have been established at secondary level, mostly opting for geography and/ or history to be taught through the medium of English (Wildhage & Otten 2003). Transition is not a problem if such a programme can be provided as early as 5 th grade (the usual starting point is grade 7; history as a subject is normally not introduced before grade 7) and the number of lessons for English as a subject is increased (4 to 5 hours per week in 5 th grade). This, however, cannot always be warranted. In an early case study in Kiel, children were observed and studied in a bilingual preschool programme and later in a partial immersion programme (70 % share of English) at a nearby primary school (Wode et al. 1999). After finishing primary school, 15 children went to one particular grammar school in Kiel together. Along with 15 children from a nonimmersion background they formed a new 5 th grade class. The school was not willing or ready to offer an immersion programme. Other than English as a subject no further subject matter was offered through the medium of English. The only compromise the school was willing to offer was a special English class referred to as ACE (Advanced Class of English). The 15 bilingual children from the preschool project were joined by three children with an English speaking background from a different 5 th grade class to form a unique class for the five regular English lessons per week. The major challenge for the teacher now was to find topics and develop accommodating children coming from bilingual programmes moving from a bilingual programme into the regular foreign language classroom 100 Chapter 7 materials for these students since there obviously was no model for this unique enterprise (Rohde 2004). At present, the grammar school offers geography through the medium of English from grade 7, however, unlike at primary school, there is no more comprehensive immersion programme, but at least the grammar school recognises the students ’ acquired foreign language skills and gives them the opportunity to further develop these skills - even if the so called ACE groups are not more than a compromise. Scenarios such as these are likely to increase with a more widespread implementation of bilingual programmes in primary schools, until stronger regulated ways of cooperation have been found. 5 The survey The previous sections have discussed a number of relevant factors for the transition from one educational institution to another. In order to gain an overview of how transition procedures are handled across different educational institutions in Germany and whether the above discussed problems are recognised by the institutions, a questionnaire titled "Transition in Bilingual Programmes" was constructed to capture the practical experiences of bilingual institutions from preschool to secondary school (see Appendix). The term “ bilingual ” was not defined for the purpose of the survey in order to include a range of different programmes in the survey which refer to themselves as being bilingual. It was chosen as a neutral term which was supposed to avoid the fuzziness in terminological usage of concepts such as “ content-based foreign language teaching ” , “ immersion ” or “ CLIL ” (Content and Language Integrated Learning) which are applied in a variety of meanings especially in the selfconception of practitioners (see discussion below for a definition of these terms). Indications with regard to the special characteristics of the programmes involved in the survey were elicited through a background question on the percentage of weekly input offered in the L2 (Question 3). The questionnaire consists of twelve both closedand open-ended questions in German which yield information about the bilingual programme itself, its forms of transition and exchange, and about the teachers ’ personal evaluation of measures to support the transition process. The questions were constructed based on recommendations in the research literature and on personal experience of best practice in bilingual programmes. The questionnaire was piloted with teachers from one bilingual preschool, two bilingual schools and a number of researchers from the field of bilingual learning and teaching, and subsequently adapted slightly according to the feedback. For two weeks in March 2012, the questionnaire was available for online completion. The internet link was distributed to the mailing list of the FMKS (Association for Early Multilingualism in Day Nurseries and Schools, www.fmks. eu), Germany ’ s largest association of bilingual institutions, which included ca. 300 bilingual preschools and ca. 900 bilingual schools (both primary and secondary), at the time. In addition, colleagues in the field were asked to distribute the link through their lists of bilingual institutions. the questionnaire On the Road to Nowhere? The Transition Problem of Bilingual Teaching Programmes 101 Background information 102 questionnaires were submitted and included in the analysis. Of these, 36 questionnaires were submitted by preschools, 17 by primary schools, 39 by secondary schools (1 Hauptschule, 6 Realschulen, 27 Gymnasien, 5 Gesamtschulen including Oberschulen/ Sekundarschulen), and 10 by specified institutions such as comprehensive programmes from preschool or preschool to primary or secondary school (n=5), a Saturday/ supplementary school (Ergänzungsschule), a primary school in a transitory phase to becoming a neighbourhood school (Stadtteilschule), a nursery school for children aged 1 - 3, and a centre for secondary education (one institution did not give a specification of the programme in question 1). 55 institutions are publicly supported, 47 institutions are funded by private associations (question 2). Four institutions (1 preschool, 1 primary school, 1 Realschule and 1 supplementary Saturday-school) indicate not to have a bilingual programme. Of these, the preschool offers 90 - 100 % of the weekly language input in the foreign language (L2) but describes further below that language input is given in two languages; the supplementary school offers content-based teaching in Czech (probably 100 % although no percentage is given). For the other institutions (including the preschool mentioned above) the self-evaluation of weekly input offered in the L2 is displayed in Table 1 (question 3). Survey questions and answers were translated from German into English for the purpose of this chapter. ca. 10 - 25 % ca. 30 - 45 % ca. 50 - 65 % ca. 70 - 85 % ca. 90 - 100 % 32 27 16 9 12 Table 1: Distribution of percentage of weekly routines / curriculum which takes place in the foreign language in bilingual programmes (q. 3) This distribution shows that the application of the term “ bilingual ” programme differs widely across the institutions. The majority of the institutions offers English as L2 (n=80), 9 offer French, 4 Italian and Spanish, respectively; languages offered by one institution are Russian, Czech, and Turkish (question 5). 37 institutions are based on a preceding bilingual programme (question 4). Similarly, 37 institutions indicate to have a regulated transition between either preschool - primary school or secondary school (however, even though the number is the same, they do not coincide) (question 6). Results Figure 1 shows the different types of transition described in the comments to question 7: What are exact forms of transition in your programme from preschool to primary and/ or from primary to secondary school? Please comment. The comments were grouped into different categories (one comment could be attributed to several categories.): The majority of similar comments indicate that there are no transitory measures whatsoever in the programmes (n=17). A number of other the different school types participating in the study 102 Chapter 7 institutions report to have a close cooperation and information exchange even though no direct transitory measures are in place (n=8). A large number of bilingual preschools lead to conventional primary English teaching in grade 1 (in the federal states of North-Rhine Westphalia and Baden-Württemberg) or grade 3 (n=13). Other institutions send their pupils to a range of different schools, some of which include a bilingual programme (n=5). The various forms of bilingual programmes in this survey are referred to as CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) in this section (for an explanation, see Discussion below). Types of programmes which include a form of transition are bilingual preschools which lead to CLIL in primary school (n=12) and primary schools which lead to CLIL in secondary school (Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht), in most cases with intensified English lessons in grade 5 and 6, and one to several CLIL subjects from grade 7 onwards) (n=14). Only a small number of institutions contain a bilingual programme from preschool to secondary school (n=5). 5 institutions report that they are currently in the process of implementing a transition programme. Figure 1: Distribution of types of transition as indicated in the comments to q. 7 Table 2 shows the distribution of answers to question 8: Do you perceive this transition between the preceding and/ or succeeding institution and your own as problematic in your institution at present? different types of transition perceived problems of transition On the Road to Nowhere? The Transition Problem of Bilingual Teaching Programmes 103 not problematic at all 41 partly problematic 40 rather problematic 18 highly problematic 3 Table 2: Distribution of perceived problems with transition in own institution at present (q. 8) To see which factor might contribute to the differences in perception, the data were grouped according to several filters. There are no statistically significant differences between the group of preschools, primary schools and secondary schools in the data set nor between those with or without a preceding bilingual programme (question 4). Figure 2: Distribution of perceived problems with transition in the institution at present (q. 8) according to programme regulation. (q. 6: no regulated transition: n=65, regulated transition, n=37) Unpaired T-Test: t (100) = 2.2589, p < 0.05 This is different, however, for institutions which indicated that they had, or did not have, a form of regulated transition in their programmes (question 6, again the term “ regulation ” was not defined in order to include all self-conceptions of the participants), as illustrated in Figure 2 (in % of the group answers): The rate of perceived problems in the institutions with no regulated programme is significantly higher than in institutions with a regulated programme. Question 9 was asked to specify this perception with regard to the different institutions (Figure 3, Table question 3). 104 Chapter 7 Figure 3: Perceived problems in transition, ordered according to type of institution (raw scores; numbers of “ no comment ” are disregarded in this illustration) (q. 9) Transition from preschool to primary school. . . strongly agree partly agree partly disagree strongly disagree no comment . . . does not cause problems in preschool 36 5 3 2 56 . . . does not cause problems in primary school 25 11 6 5 55 Transition from primary to secondary school. . . . . . does not cause problems in primary school 14 19 4 0 65 . . . does not cause problems in secondary school 13 25 14 7 43 Table 3: Distribution of perceived problems with regard to level of institution (scores underlying figure 3) (adapted from question 9). The difference between the groups is highly significant. (ANOVA, F (3, 185) = 8.861, p < 0.001) As can be seen in Figure 3, the higher the level of institution, the more strongly the problems of transition are perceived, as illustrated in the increasing numbers of the columns “ partly agree ” , “ partly disagree ” , “ strongly disagree ” (the number of participants who chose not to comment was disregarded). As statistical analysis showed, these differences are highly significant. When asked to comment on their choice, the informants gave a large number of different reasons: The highest number of institutions that commented on the On the Road to Nowhere? The Transition Problem of Bilingual Teaching Programmes 105 same factor suggested problems with the heterogeneity of the classes due to vast differences of the pupils ’ language levels gained in primary school (n=16, mainly from secondary schools). One school states: (1) # 37: Considerable problems are caused by the different approaches of each primary school in the state of Baden-Württemberg. In my opinion, FLT in primary school only functions as an alibi for politicians. The level at the Realschule was significantly higher and more homogenous before the implementation of obligatory FLT in primary school. Highly different schools of origin prevent mutual progression. Others claim that a lot of time and energy has to be invested to bring the pupils to a comparable language level. Related to this are four comments regarding language weaknesses, especially in the areas of grammar and pronunciation, of the pupils who enter secondary school. This fact is ascribed to a lack of training of primary school teachers in one comment. Two institutions claim to handle this heterogeneity without any problems with the help of careful differentiation for the different levels. Two others find that the language level of the pupils converges over time. By contrast, other programmes see a problem in the advanced language level of children from bilingual classes for whom the ordinary FLT is below their needs and thus remains “ boring ” and unchallenging (n=3). One even goes so far as to attribute a negative “ sense of elite ” to immersion children with regard not only to their language level, which, however, were to cease after some time in the new school, according to the questionnaire. Another problem mentioned for bilingual institutions in particular is presented by newcomers to a running programme, or classes with a number of bilingual children that have to be filled up with children who possess no prior knowledge of the foreign language in order to form a full class. In addition, the question of the conditions under which pupils are selected for bilingual classes is discussed by one subject in this respect. A problem inherent to bilingual preschool transition in federal states other than Baden-Württemberg and North-Rhine Westphalia (where FLT of English starts in grade 1) is the gap in the exposure to L2 English between preschool and grade 3. Some preschools claim that much of the acquired language will be lost during this gap (n=3). This problem is increasingly evident in programmes with a language other than English and no transition at all as the foreign language of the preschool is not offered as part of the primary curriculum. One participant mentions, in addition, the discontentment of the parents if no programme continuation is provided after primary school. Concerning the exchange between programmes, six institutions claim that a well-functioning cooperation is in place, which relies on good educational programmes and collective preparation. Several other institutions state that they have no experience at all, partly because their programmes are still in the process of implementation (n=8). Another eight institutions claim that communication is difficult or does not exist, even if one partner would like to establish a closer exchange. Reasons for such difficulties are the extra time that needs to be invested, as well as different educational administrative boards and curricula for the different levels, which hamper a coherent common pedagogical concept. challenges cooperation 106 Chapter 7 Figure 4: Sum of measures of transition in FL programmes (raw scores) (adapted from q. 10) Figure 4 summarizes the number of measures of transition taken by all institutions, as indicated in the answers to question 10 (in sum). By contrast, Figure 5 shows the perceived importance attributed to each of these measures by the subjects. Figure 5: Perceived importance of measures of transition (raw scores) (q. 11) measures of transition On the Road to Nowhere? The Transition Problem of Bilingual Teaching Programmes 107 Comparing these two illustrations, it becomes obvious that the four measures taken most frequently, i. e. information events for parents, information exchange between teachers, teachers ’ meetings and mutual information about the children ’ s development (Figure 4), are also considered the four most relevant in the questionnaires (Figure 5). Similarly, the exchange of materials and early collaborative planning are considered less important than other measures, and do not take place very frequently. A mismatch between perception and realisation, however, can be found within the categories of children ’ s visits to the other classes, which do not have a high relevance within the range of measures, but seem to take place more frequently than others in spite of that, and the exchange of goals and methods across institutions. The latter is perceived as fairly important by the participants, however, its implementation is among the three most infrequently used categories. The only additional category mentioned in question 10 under “ other ” is the following comment: (2) # 22: We are trying to create interest at the new local educational conferences. In their comments to the perceived importance of these measures (question 12), most subjects attribute positive effects to the measures mentioned. Only one subject states: (3) # 91: It should be the goal of the primary school to strengthen the mother tongue! Category: exchange of goals and methods. Bilingual teaching in primary school is useless, [it is] more important to strengthen the competence in the mother tongue, [which is] also very beneficial for the foreign language competence. Category: other In spite of the overall consent to a number of measures, a number of subjects mention difficulties to find the time for such extra activities or to integrate them in the organisation of the school routines, for example with regard to cancelled or replacement lessons if special activities including teachers or children happen during the school day. This seems especially relevant to schools with a large catchment area and a high number of different preceding institutions they draw from. Some participants report on special work groups or informal or private exchange, and one mentions how dependent the success is on the individual teacher. Some describe a well-planned and implemented exchange, whereas some others claim that there is no need for measures of exchange. The general tendency expressed in a large number of comments, however, is summarised in quotes such as: (4) # 34: Becoming mutually acquainted with each other and also with the work of the other would lead to mutual appreciation and a better collaboration. Category: teachers ’ meetings (5) # 69: All measures are of the same relevance to guarantee a well-structured content-based work, the interconnection between different institutions, and the practical implementation. Category: other 108 Chapter 7 (6) # 97: Special offers are only embraced if the preceding and the succeeding school act in concert / collaborate. Category: consultations among heads of schools Discussion As has become obvious, the institutions in the data set differ widely in terms of their programmes, the foreign languages they offer, and the intensity of the implementation of these languages within their system. According to the Canadian model (e. g. Genesee 1987), programmes which label themselves immersion programmes have to fulfil the criterion of offering at least 50 % of their curriculum in the foreign language. This is especially important to bear in mind as the positive research results connected with immersion in a) the level of foreign language attained, as well as b) in the majority language, c) in the subject matter and d) in general cognitive abilities (cf. Wesche 2002, Festman & Kersten 2010) all pertain to intensive programmes that fulfil this criterion. Recent European language policy has implemented a new umbrella term for bilingual teaching, Content and Language Integrated Learning, in short CLIL (e. g. Marsh & Langé 2000, also see chapter 3 in this volume), which stands for content-based foreign language learning in a variety of degrees of intensity: Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is a generic term and refers to any educational situation in which an additional language and therefore not the most widely used language of the environment is used for the teaching and learning of subjects other than the language itself. (Marsh & Langé 2000: iii) We would argue, therefore, that strongly content-based sections within traditional FLT can be located at one extreme of a continuum scale of CLIL (compare Met 1999), followed by single units, modules or projects within other subjects carried out in the foreign language, as well as the bilingual teaching of single subjects (Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht), while partial and full immersion programmes represent the other extreme of the continuum (cited after Kersten 2011, see also Burmeister & Massler 2010: 7, Burmeister, forthcoming, who do not include content-based sections within FLT in their definition). While 37 institutions within the data set fulfil the criterion of an immersion programme (cf. Table 1), 59 institutions indicate to have bilingual programmes with a lower intensity than 50 %, thus qualifying for CLIL programmes but not for immersion. The forms of transition within these programmes are also very heterogeneous, and many of the institutions seem to be in the process of searching for or of implementing new forms, so that all results have to be interpreted with caution and seem to point to the fact that the situation of bilingual programmes in Germany can, at best, be called transitory at present. However, the results from questions 6 and 8 indicate that a regulated form of transition seems to be the most important factor to avoid problems within the institutions, as the group of institutions with a declared regulated transition perceives it as significantly less problematic that the group without regulation (Figure 2). This factor of regulation seems to be even more important than the extension of bilingual various bilingual teaching programmes heterogeneous forms of transition On the Road to Nowhere? The Transition Problem of Bilingual Teaching Programmes 109 programmes across levels (which, in fact, might not be regulated at all). Such results underline the overall importance of the factor of regulation. This is somewhat at odds with the view presented in the first part of the paper according to which content-based bilingual teaching is per se less problematic in terms of transition as the content plays the important role rather than the language. It is possible, however, that the “ inherent bridging nature ” of content-based bilingual teaching has not yet been discovered by the institutions taking part in the survey, because other factors of the respective eco-system may still be more relevant for the teachers. With regard to the level of education, the highest degree of problems seems to be perceived in secondary schools after the pupils ’ transition from primary schools. This difference in perception is statistically highly significant. Here, especially the heterogeneous language levels of the arriving children are mentioned (Figure 3, Table 3, compare Böttger 2009). As has been discussed in the first part of this chapter, the higher the level of the institution, the more pressure may be generated, especially for the institutions below as certain linguistic skills have to be in place at a particular time. How problematic a lack of exchange of goals and methods can prove to be became obvious in four comments on perceived language weaknesses in grammar and pronunciation after primary school, which are, however, not part of primary school curricula. Reasons for perceived problems include, in particular, the situation of many schools that seems to be transitory, the fact that cooperation has not yet been established, and a certain degree of frustration if the need for an exchange is not reciprocated by the other institution. However, the subjects also give examples of good practice with wellfunctioning collaboration (question 9). To sum up, the need for communication across levels seems to be high for a large number of subjects, but is often not yet at a satisfactory level. With regard to the measures of good practice pertaining to the transition phenomenon, the selection offered in the questionnaire seems to cover the most important activities, as only one subject added another aspect in the open comment section, i. e. information at local conferences. The highest discrepancy of measures perceived important versus measures that are actually implemented in the institutions can be found in the visits of children in classes in the other institution, and, on a more theoretical level, in the exchange about goals and methods. Given the problems with transition mentioned above (question 9, compare Jürgens & Standop 2011, cf. section 2 and 3 of our chapter), especially those of heterogeneity and of the insecurity about the language level with which the pupils will arrive at the succeeding school, the lack of knowledge of the others ’ goals and methods might in effect reinforce these problems (compare Jürgens & Standop 2011: 409 ff). In this respect, it is also surprising that only two questionnaires mention differentiation to meet this challenge. Thus, increasing an exchange about goals and methods of each programme, and the amount of differentiation for the newcomers, might remedy this perceived unbalance to some extent. bilingual teaching and levels of education 110 Chapter 7 6 Conclusions From our perspective as well as the perspective taken throughout this book, it will become increasingly indispensable in primary English to take into account the concept of CLIL and cross-curricular learning as promoted by European language policy. This should be reflected in the curricula of primary English across Germany, and in the level descriptions based on the CEFR (Council of Europe 2001) for the final primary grade. Introducing primary English in grade 1 through teaching staff who is well-trained in modern FLT methodology will be another advantage, as the gap between various and increasing forms of foreign language learning in preschool will be bridged, some early sensitive periods for language at a young age will be met to a fuller extent (Burmeister et al. 2011, Kersten 2011, Rohde 2012), and the language level at the end of primary school might generally increase to a more homogenous level (Rohde & Lepschy 2007). How beneficial bilingual and especially immersive learning in German preschools and primary schools can be for the foreign language competence as well as for the children ’ s knowledge of German and of the subject matter has recently been demonstrated by an increasing number of publications (cf. Kersten 2010 and Kersten et al. 2010 for bilingual preschools, Kersten 2009, 2011, Zaunbauer & Möller 2007, 2010, Zaunbauer et al. 2005, Gebauer et al. 2012) which support the overwhelmingly numerous results from, e. g., Canadian immersion (see Wesche 2002 for an overview). Thus, as we have known for several decades, the request to strengthen the majority language (in our case, German) is one of the key factors of immersion programmes, and well documented within their results. It has to be pointed out, in this respect, that the request to strengthen the mother tongue (cf. comment 3) is somewhat misleading as many multilingual children in the German school system have a language other than the majority language (German) as their mother tongue. Strong support for the different languages of children who grow up multilingually at home should be provided by the family, in particular. For languages other than English, however, which are not part of the primary school curriculum, the effort will remain to take care of special programmes and measures to guarantee a continuation of the language learning process. This chapter has identified some of the most important measures taken by schools and preschools to enhance the difficult transition process from one educational institution to another for the children. These measures include, in the order of perceived importance, information exchange between teachers, information events for parents, teachers ’ meetings, information exchange about the level of the children ’ s development, exchange on goals and methods of the programmes, consultations among heads of schools, teachers ’ visits to other classes, early collaborative planning, children ’ s visits to other classes, and the exchange of materials. Finally, a change on the view of heterogeneity, as addressed in this study, is recommendable in our perspective. Much could be gained if heterogeneity among the students was seen as chance for an inspiring classroom experience instead of a burden. To meet the requirements of highly heterogeneous language levels, mutual exchange and differentiation will become increasingly indispensable in the FLT classroom. A good quality of teacher training foreign language competence role of mother tongue and majority language measures to enhance transition On the Road to Nowhere? The Transition Problem of Bilingual Teaching Programmes 111 at the university level is needed to prepare young teachers for the new requirements of a changing educational landscape in (early) foreign language learning. 7 Summary We demonstrated that transition across English teaching programmes is a multifaceted problem. If English teaching is predominantly language-course-oriented (a linguistic skills view), pressure is generated especially at the higher school levels as at every level linguistic skills have to be acquired that are mandatory for the succeeding level. Content-based English teaching (especially immersion programmes) may theoretically avoid this pressure as there is no hierarchy of linguistic skills, i. e. no specific English language curriculum. The survey we conducted at preschools and schools supports the idea that the higher the level of an institution the more strongly the problems of transition are perceived. However, if institutions take regulated transition measures, there are fewer received problems than in programmes with no such measures - irrespective of the programme type, content-based or language-course-oriented. The suggested measures which are deemed especially important by the schools, and which are implemented most frequently, are information events for parents, information exchange between teachers, teachers ’ meetings and mutual information about the children ’ s development. In addition, differentiation is recommended to meet the requirements of increasingly heterogeneous classrooms. Acknowledgments We are very grateful to Annette Lommel and Sandra Hertrich (FMKS, Association for Early Multilingualism in Day Nurseries and Schools) and Kim Schick for the distribution of the questionnaire, Esther Maier, Lea Wenzel and Dario Klemm for help with the data analysis, to Petra Burmeister, Peter Cloos, Karl Starkebaum, Daniela Elsner and Jörg-U. Keßler for comments on an earlier draft of this chapter, and to all preschools and schools which have participated in the study. Without their help, this project would not have been possible. Review - Reflect - Research 1. What are the components of a skills/ abilities model and how do individual skills and abilities have to develop in order to mitigate transition from one institution to another? 2. What can be advantages of a language-course-oriented English teaching programme for an institution? 3. Compare content-based teaching from a language pedagogical perspective to regular language-course-oriented teaching programmes. What are the commonalities and differences, especially with regard to content and language learning goals? 4. According to our survey, information events for parents and mutual visits of students and teachers from the different institutions appear to minimize the 112 Chapter 7 problems of transition considerably. Think of reasons why such simple measures can have such an important effect. 5. Think of reasons why transition problems are perceived more strongly in institutions which are located at the higher end of the hierarchy. What could be measures to counter these problems? 6. Compare national curricula of elementary education, primary schools and secondary schools with regard to foreign language learning in your federal state. What are the differences and commonalities? Are the goals at each level adjusted to those of the other levels? Are they reflected in the teaching materials for that particular level? 7. Based on comment 1 (#37, page 106), construct and conduct a survey on teacher attitudes and self-conceptions in different forms of primary and secondary schools in your region. Are such opinions widespread, or do they represent a minority? What is the teachers ’ perception of the role of a language teacher? Further reading suggestions Jürgens, E. & Standop, J. (2011), Die Perspektive der Grundschule in einem erweiterten Bildungsraum - Der Übergang vom Kindergarten in die Grundschule in die weiterführenden Schulen. In Bollweg, P. & Otto, H.-U.(Hrsg.), Räume flexibler Bildung. Bildungslandschaft in der Diskussion. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 393 - 417. Kucharz, D., Irion, T. & Reinhoffer, B. (Hrsg.) (2011), Grundlegende Bildung ohne Brüche. Jahrbuch Grundschulforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Serrurier-Zucker, C., Mayer, N., Kolb, A. & Stotz, D. (2009), Bridging the Gap between Primary and Secondary Foreign Language Teaching: Pri-Sec-Co - Primary and Secondary Continuity in Foreign Language Teaching. Views 18 (3) Special Issue: 130 - 132. On the Road to Nowhere? The Transition Problem of Bilingual Teaching Programmes 113 Annex: Questionnaire Übergang in Bilingualen Programmen Fragebogen zur Erfassung von Praxiserfahrungen mit dem Übergang der Fremdsprachenangebote in bilingualen Kitas, Grundschulen und weiterführenden Schulen. 1 Institution (Pflichtfrage) Kita Grundschule Hauptschule Realschule Gymnasium Gesamtschule (inkl. Oberschule/ Sekundarschule) Sonstiges (bitte erläutern): 2 Unsere Einrichtung ist... (Pflichtfrage) ... in öffentlicher Trägerschaft. ... in freier Trägerschaft. 3 Hat Ihre Einrichtung ein bilinguales Programm? (Pflichtfrage) Nein Ja Wenn JA: Wieviel Prozent des wöchentlichen Kita-Ablaufs / des wöchentlichen Curriculums findet in der Fremdsprache statt? ca. 10-25 % ca. 30-45 % ca. 50-65 % ca. 70-85 % ca. 90-100 % 4 Baut Ihr Programm auf einem vorgeschalteten bilingualen Kitabzw. Schulprogramm auf? (Pflichtfrage) Ja Nein 5 Welche Fremsprache wird in Ihrer Institution bilingual angeboten? Dänisch Chinesisch Englisch Französisch Griechisch Italienisch Japanisch Niederländisch Polnisch Portugiesisch Russisch Spanisch Tschechisch Türkisch Andere: 6 Wir sind daran interessiert, wie der Übergang des Fremdsprachenlernens von der Kita über die 114 Chapter 7 Grundschule bis in die weiterführende Schule funktioniert. Gibt es in Ihrer Institution einen geregelten Übergang im Fremdsprachenprogramm zwischen Grundschule und/ oder Kita und Sek. I? (Pflichtfrage) Ja Nein 7 Welche konkreten Übergangsmöglichkeiten gibt es bei Ihnen von der Kita in die Grundschule und von der Grundschule in die Sek. I? (Pflichtfrage) (Mehrfachnennungen sind möglich) Das Kita-Programm führt in ein bilinguales Programm der Grundschule. Das Kita-Programm führt in den normalen Englischunterricht der Grundschule. Das Kita-Programm führt in einen erweiterten / angepassten Englischunterricht der Grundschule. Das Grundschulprogramm führt in ein bilinguales Programm der Sek. I. Das Grundschulprogramm führt in den normalen Englischunterricht der Sek. I. Das Grundschulprogramm führt in einen erweiterten / angepassten Englischunterricht der Sek I. Sonstiges: Bitte erläutern Sie Ihren Programmübergang kurz: 8 Halten Sie in Ihrer Institution im Moment diesen Übergang zwischen Ihrer Institution und der vorgeschalteten und/ oder nachfolgenden Einrichtung für problematisch? (Pflichtfrage) überhaupt nicht problematisch teilweise problematisch ziemlich problematisch höchst problematisch 9 Diese Frage soll Ihre Auswahl noch konkreter machen: Der Übergang des Fremdsprachenprogramms... (Pflichtfrage) 1=Ich stimme voll zu. 2=Ich stimme teilweise zu. 3=Ich stimme teilweise nicht zu. 4=Ich stimme überhaupt nicht zu. 1 2 3 4 Keine Angabe ... von der Kita in die Grundschule verursacht keine Probleme in der Kita. ... von der Kita in die Grundschule verursacht keine Probleme in der Grundschule. ... von der Grundschule in die Sek I verursacht keine Probleme in der Grundschule. ... von der Grundschule in die Sek I verursacht keine Probleme in der Sek I. Bitte erläutern Sie Ihre Auswahl: 10 Welche Maßnahmen zum Übergang des Fremdsprachenprogramms finden in Ihrer Institution statt? (Bitte klicken Sie alle zutreffenden Punkte an.) On the Road to Nowhere? The Transition Problem of Bilingual Teaching Programmes 115 Bitte beachten Sie in Fragen 9-11: Leiter/ innen umfasst Kita- und Schulleitungen Lehrkräfte umfasst Erzieher/ innen und Lehrer/ innen (Pflichtfrage) zwischen Kita und Grundschule zwischen Grundschule und Sek I zwischen Kita und Sek I zwischen Kita, Grundschule und Sek I findet nicht statt Informationsaustausch zwischen Lehrkräften Treffen von Lehrkräften Absprachen zwischen den Leiter/ innen Informationsveranstaltungen für Eltern Besuche durch Lehrkräfte in den jeweils anderen Gruppen/ Klassen Besuche durch Kinder in den jeweils anderen Gruppen/ Klassen Austausch von Materialien Frühzeitige gemeinsame Planung Austausch von Informationen zum Entwicklungsstand der Kinder Austausch zu Zielen und Methoden Sonstiges 11 Für wie bedeutungsvoll halten Sie die folgenden Maßnahmen zum Übergang des Fremdsprachenprogramms? (Pflichtfrage) 1=Sehr wichtig 2=Ziemlich wichtig 3=Eher unwichtig 4=Völlig unwichtig 1 2 3 4 Kann ich nicht sagen Informationsaustausch zwischen Lehrkräften Treffen von Lehrkräften Absprachen zwischen den Leiter/ innen Informationsveranstaltungen für Eltern Besuche durch Lehrkräfte in den jeweils anderen Gruppen/ Klassen Besuche durch Kinder in den jeweils anderen Gruppen/ Klassen Austausch von Materialien Frühzeitige gemeinsame Planung Austausch von Informationen zum Entwicklungsstand der Kinder Austausch zu Zielen und Methoden 12 Bitte kommentieren Sie Ihre Auswahl: (Pflichtfrage) 116 Chapter 7 Informationsaustausch zwischen Lehrkräften Treffen von Lehrkräften Absprachen zwischen den Leiter/ innen Informationsveranstaltungen für Eltern Besuche durch Lehrkräfte in den jeweils anderen Gruppen/ Klassen Besuche durch Kinder in den jeweils anderen Gruppen/ Klassen Austausch von Materialien Frühzeitige gemeinsame Planung Austausch von Informationen zum Entwicklungsstand der Kinder Austausch zu Zielen und Methoden Sonstiges Herzlichen Dank für Ihre Teilnahme. Ihre Daten wurden an uns übermittelt. Das Ergebnis der Umfrage wird nach Fertigstellung auf der Webseite des FMKS zugänglich gemacht. Sie können Ihren Internet- Browser jetzt schließen. On the Road to Nowhere? The Transition Problem of Bilingual Teaching Programmes 117 SERVICE SECTION Glossary Assessment: By assessment, all methods used to gather information about children ’ s knowledge, abilities, understanding, attitudes, and motivation are understood. Classroom assessments can include a wide range of options - from taking notes on students ’ behaviour while doing an experiment to carrying out standardized tests. The assessment purposes can be roughly divided into two categories - formative assessment and summative assessment. Authentic assessment: The question here is to what extent the assessment task reflects the kind of language children use in the CLIL classroom, or need in situations related to the specific content outside the classroom. BICS: Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills refers to our every day speech and the conversational fluency that one can reach in this language. The distinction between basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) was first made by Cummins (1979) in order to call educators ’ attention to the challenges that second language learners encounter as they attempt to catch up to their peers in academic aspects of the language spoken in the education setting. Bilingualism: Definitions of bilingualism range from having native-like control of two languages to the ability to produce complete, meaningful utterances in two languages. Bilingual first language acquisition: We speak of bilingual first language acquisition when children have continuous input in two languages in their environment from birth. Bilingual education: any educational setting or practice that makes use of two languages for teaching and learning processes at any given point, for a varying amount of time, simultaneously or consecutively. Bilingualer Fachunterricht: a variety of subjects (e. g. History, Biology, Geography) are predominantly taught in another language than the language of the education system. (see also Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht and bilingual subject teaching) Bilingual modules: small units illuminating one particular non-languagesubject-specific topic from various points of view and in at least two languages. Bilingual preschools: Preschools which offer part of their daily routines in a foreign language. Usually, one teacher uses the majority or school language in interactions with the class, while another, usually a native speaker of the language, uses the preschool ’ s L2 or another target foreign language. In most bilingual preschools, this amounts to 50 % of daily input in the L2; however, other scenarios are possible as well. Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht: In Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht one or multiple school subjects are predominantly taught in a modern foreign language. For preparatory reasons, the foreign language is taught with an increased number of hours per week in grades 5 and 6, while from grade 7 and 8 onwards the foreign language is used as the dominant working language in up to three subjects until the end of the secondary school career in a separate path. (see also Bilingualer Fachunterricht and bilingual subject teaching) Bilingual subject teaching: a variety of subjects (e. g. History, Biology, Geography) are predominantly taught in another language than the language of the education system (see also Bilingualer Fachunterricht and Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht) Broca ’ s area: The Broca ’ s area is the left hemisphere main area of the cerebral cortex commonly associated with speech production and, according to more recent findings, also comprehension. Named after Pierre Paul Broca (1824 - 1880), who found impaired speech production in two patients who had suffered brain damage in specific brain areas (Broca ’ s aphasia). Patients who suffer from Broca ’ s aphasia have severe difficulties in speech production and are not able to produce fluent and/ or coherent utterances though what they say is meaningful. CALP: Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (Cummins 1979 b) refers to students ’ ability to understand and use decontextualized and abstract (technical) language, both in oral and written modes, in order to explore and express concepts and ideas that are relevant for educational success. The distinction between basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) was made by Cummins in order to call educators ’ attention to the challenges that second language learners encounter as they attempt to catch up to their peers in academic aspects of the language spoken in the education setting. (see also Interdependence Theory) CLIL: CLIL stands for Content and Language Integrated Learning and is used as an umbrella term for different forms of content-based foreign language learning in a variety of degrees of intensity. Foreign language teaching in regular language programmes may contain a minimum of CLIL units if the language is used to discuss content-based topics with only a small focus on grammatical form. The term also covers modules or projects within a subject other than language arts which are carried out in the foreign language, as well as the bilingual teaching of 122 Glossary single subjects (also see Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht). Partial and full immersion programmes represent the most intensive forms of the CLIL continuum. CEFR/ Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Document published by the Council of Europe in 2001 listing major principles, goals, and standards for (foreign) language education. It can be retrieved at the following URL: http: / / www.coe.int/ t/ dg4/ linguistic/ source/ framework_en.pdf (last accessed 13/ 1/ 2013). Code-switching: Code-switching refers to the switching between two languages within a conversation (also referred to as intersentential switching). Code-mixing: In sociolinguistics, code-mixing is defined as the mixing of elements of more than one language within an utterance (also called intrasentential switching). Cognition: Cognition refers to all activities concerned with thinking and when information is processed in the human brain (e. g. observing, perceiving, planning, deciding, anticipating etc.). Competence descriptor: These descriptors are often phrased as can-do statements and describe abilities and resources that language users can mobilise in order to perform a given task or activity. Bundles of competence descriptors are used to illustrate a specific level of proficiency, such as the levels of the Common European Framework of Language. Cross-curricular learning: Cross-curricular learning, often also referred to as interdisciplinary learning, is supported when phenomena or content matters are taken up in more than one subject or discipline. Alternatively different subject matters can be linked in holistic approaches to learning, such as projects or workshops on a real life topic. DEZIBEL: DEZIBEL is a research project on extensive bilingual courses set at grammar schools in Berlin, using English as the working language, conducted by W. Zydatiß in 2007. The study attentions on interdependencies between foreign language competencies and academic discourse competencies relevant to subjectmatter teaching at lower secondary level. DESI Study: DESI (German English Student Assessment International) is a longitudinal study that between 2001 and 2006 investigated 11.000 secondary school students in 9 th grade in Germany in different language competences both in German and English as a first foreign language. A major result of the study is that immersion and CLIL both offer a most successful way into instructed foreign language learning. Learners in such environments scored significantly higher in their communicative competence. The tested learners from bilingual classrooms Glossary 123 outperformed their peers from traditional classrooms in listening skills by up to two school years. Early second language acquisition: We speak of early second language acquisition when children have continuous input to a second language in their environment after a specific age (usually after the age of 3). Eco-system model: The eco-system model describes the total of factors which are part of the transitional process, also including the parties involved in the children ’ s education process: the family, the preschool, the primary school and the wider society. These parties are viewed as co-constructors of the child ’ s education. In the eco-system model there are no a priori skills/ abilities formulated for the child to acquire. Rather, the model calls upon a tight cooperation of the involved parties in order to pave the way for a smooth transition across the institutions. Early immersion: Learning two languages from the earliest point of formal education (e. g. day nursery or kindergarten). Evaluation criterion: Such criteria are designed to provide a measurement or estimate of how well an assessment activity has been performed. For instance, in a speaking task, the criterion of fluency may be used to give information as to how articulate, coherent, hesitant etc. the conversational contribution of a test taker is. Evaluation criteria can be expressed as percentage points or as rating scales. Experiment: An experiment is any activity undertaken to test a hypothesis. In order for the test to be valid, all parameters that can potentially influence the results must be precisely defined. At least one parameter is chosen to be varied while the other parameters are held fixed. Thus the influence of the fixed parameters on the variable one can be revealed. Example: Is sweetness affected by the temperature of the food being eaten? Variables that might affect the outcome are: the person tasting, the kind of ice cream, what the person ate just before the ice cream, the amount of ice cream in the mouth, the position of the tongue in the mouth, the length of time the ice cream is held in the mouth, the ice cream temperature. Fix the first six variables, vary the last. Possible sources of error: how to define degree of “ sweetness ” ? The sensation of sweetness of ice cream might be different from the sensation of sweetness of cake; it might be affected by the amount of water or fat in the food being tested. Formative assessment: Formative assessment is the assessment that takes place during a course or a programme of study. Very often it is informal and carried out while teaching. As its main aim is to provide feedback to teachers and learners on how the course is going, how pupils progress individually and on how learning can be improved during the course, it is considered an integral part of learning and a learning experience in its own right. 124 Glossary Form-focused instruction: This type of instruction draws the students ’ attention to grammatical forms and structures of the language. Students are made aware of forms through metalinguistic explanation or corrective feedback. A form focus stands in contrast to a meaning focus where the students ’ message is of primary importance. However, both types are frequently used alongside each other. Full immersion: see total immersion Guided investigation: Guided investigations are conducted within an inquiry-based lesson in which the instructor provides a problem to be solved and suggests methods for solving it. The design of the actual solution method, its implementation, and the evaluation and presentation of the obtained results are the responsibility of the learners. See also “ inquiry-based (science) education ” . Health and Safety: Health and safety is the expression that the UK government (also used by the Australian government) uses to summarize each citizen ’ s right to be protected at their workplace, at school or in any other public place. Since the Health and Safety Act has been put into effect in 1974, there have been strict regulations about how the workplace of UK citizens has to be designed to make sure that employees are not harmed during their time at work. In the same manner, there are regulations about how children ’ s health and safety have to be taken care of within UK institutions. (to) immerse: To immerse means to plunge into something; in instructed foreign language classrooms it refers to a so-called language bath. Immersion: Immersion (IM) refers to content-based programmes in which the foreign language is used as a medium of subject matter instruction to 50 - 100 % of the curriculum (see also partial, total or full immersion). Immersion programmes may start at different levels during school education (called early IM, middle or delayed IM, late IM). Some characteristics of immersion programmes include that the content matter as well as the foreign language and the majority language are fostered (additive bilingualism), that the curriculum parallels the regional curriculum, that the teachers are bilingual, and that the culture resembles the culture of the L1 environment. Immersion led primary schools: primary schools in which all subjects are taught in a language other than the language of the surrounding. Some schools only make an exception when it comes to teaching literacy which is then taught in the majority language. Intercultural learning: Intercultural learning is seen as one of the most important aims of language learning by many researchers and authors in the field of English as a Foreign Language Methodology. In Europe this aim is laid down in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Glossary 125 The goal is to detach oneself from one ’ s own culture without uncritically adopting the views of other respective cultures. A so-called third space that allows the individual to mediate between cultures is often referred to as the ideal outcome of intercultural learning. Interdependence Theory: The Interdependence Theory as put forward by Cummins (1978) posits a common underlying proficiency basis below the separate proficiencies in L1 and L2. The assumption is that academic skills in both languages are linked to a unitary underlying knowledge basis. It has often been represented as a dual-iceberg where both languages (L1 and L2) own a common underlying proficiency under the surface level which is supplemented by more complex and cognitively demanding language (also see CALP) in either of the two languages. Inquiry-based (science) education: Inquiry-based science education is a pedagogic approach that emphasizes a constructivist approach to learning. Students are not given specific facts about natural phenomena, but are led to discover these facts by performing experiments and doing literature research. It is desirable to lower the degree of guidance as learners become more proficient. Initially, the teacher poses a question to be answered, provides the (experimental) method for answering it, reveals the result that is expected, and discusses its limitations (structured inquiry). As student ’ s knowledge becomes broader and deeper, the teacher will provide less and less information (guided inquiry) until only the initiating question needs to be posed (open inquiry). Occasionally, even posing the question is left up to the learners. Language-course-orientation: Foreign language teaching is languagecourse-oriented when it is based on a concept of gradually increasing grammatical complexity and when the students are expected accordingly to display progress in their grammatical knowledge. Most English text books used in traditional English classes in Germany are language-course-oriented with clearly defined grammatical and lexical objectives in each chapter. Language-course orientation stands in contrast to open or communicative teaching concepts which are primarily contentor theme-based with grammatical skills being of secondary importance. Late immersion: learning two languages from later than primary level onwards (e. g. in secondary schools) Mathematical competences: Mathematical competences can be differentiated into different competence areas. Specific mathematical competences in the sense of being able to deal with numerical aspects, calculations and other mathematical operations (numeracy) are embedded in more general competences in mathematics such as arguing, problem solving, communicating, displaying and modelling. 126 Glossary Mathematical literacy: Mathematical literacy cannot be defined in mathematical terms alone. Mathematical literacy as defined by the OECD (2003: 24) within the PISA Study is “ an individual ’ s capacity to identify and understand the role that mathematics plays in the world, to make well-founded judgements and to use and engage with mathematics in ways that meet the needs of that individual ’ s life as a constructive, concerned and reflective citizen. “ Meaningful interaction: We may speak of meaningful interaction if the interaction stimulates a learner ’ s intellectual curiosity and engages him/ her in productive and (with respect to the learner ’ s life) meaningful activities. Meaningful interaction directly influences the learning process and the learner ’ s intellectual growth. Metalinguistic awareness: Metalinguistic awareness (also metalinguistic ability) is the ability of speakers to bring into explicit consciousness the linguistic form and structure of languages in order to explore how they relate to and produce the underlying meaning of utterances. It also describes and explains the transfer of linguistic knowledge and skills across languages. Natural phenomenon: An event or an occurrence that is due to natural forces. The definition of this term is debatable! Typically “ natural phenomena ” are those that are not “ artificial phenomena ” . But what is “ artificial ” ? Human nature, and thus human activity, is also guided by natural forces. In the German-speaking world, “ Naturphänomene ” typically refers to phenomena that are not explained by human social parameters, everything from lightning bolts and pendulum swings, to solubility of salt in water, to animal behaviour. Numeracy: Numeracy, as opposed to a more complex mathematical literacy, denotes the ability to apply basic numeric knowledge, to deal with numbers in fundamental mathematical operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Additional aspects of numeracy are number sense and orientation. Open learning scenarios: The term refers to all scenarios in classroom settings which allow for some independence on the side of the learner at an organizational level, sometimes also with regard to contents and the methods being used. The ideas that are connected with opening up lessons are that students develop responsibility for the learning process, are able to work according to their individual needs and have enough freedom to experiment and develop creativity. Some well known open learning scenarios are circuits (if there is a choice within the circuits), workshops, weekly plans, or projects. Partial immersion: certain subjects or parts of the curriculum are taught in a language different from the language of the surrounding or education system, contrary to full or total immersion. Glossary 127 Portfolio: Portfolios are a systematic compilation of an individual child ’ s work showing his/ her language abilities, effort, and language development over time. It usually includes samples of written work, audio or video recordings, drawings, teacher ’ s notes, tests, peer and self-assessment forms, and reviews of books read. Reliability of assessment: The question here is to what extent the child would get the same results if another teacher or assessor were to assess his/ her work, or if the teachers were to assess her/ him in the same way again the next day. Scaffolding: When scaffolding, EFL teachers provide contextual supports in order to facilitate students ’ understanding of the teacher ’ s input or to support students ’ own language output. This can be done by using simplified language, teacher modelling, visuals and graphics, cooperative learning and hands-on learning. As students become more proficient, the scaffold is gradually removed. School readiness paradigm: School entry is a cut in the child ’ s biography in which the child and his/ her family have to cope with changes according to status, role and identity. In addition, the concept of a school readiness paradigm which is unilaterally targeted at the primary school level (it highlights socio-emotional independence, cognitive and physical prerequisites) may lead to stigmatization and negative selection. Skills model: The skills model highlights the demands made on the children upon school entry, i. e. for a momentary event, and is therefore very similar to the German construct of school readiness. It comprises the general skill of learning, which is often understood in a narrow way in the sense of the ability to store new knowledge. Storytelling: Storytelling is a popular teaching method within foreign or second language learning classrooms. Usually the educator tells or reads out loud a story or a storybook and supports his/ her telling/ reading through visualisation (looking at images), mimics and body gestures. Storytelling is used in teaching a foreign language because of its multiple benefits. It generates a relaxed atmosphere, with learners being motivated to listen and challenged to respond to the story in an emotional and cognitive way. It also provides rich meaningful input and cultural information and helps to promote learning strategies and skills, e. g., listening for gist or guessing meaning. Summative assessment: Summative assessment occurs at a particular point in time, most typically at the end of a learning unit and is used to evaluate the effectiveness of an instructional program. Most often its goals are to make a judgment of student competency, to generate a grade that reflects students ’ performance and/ or to identify instructional areas that need additional attention. Task-based approach: In foreign language instruction, a task-based approach engages learners by assigning them real-world or authentic-like language tasks in 128 Glossary which the main focus is on meaning. The tasks have a clear communicative purpose but are open in their outcome or product. Types of tasks range from listing and ordering to problem-solving and sharing personal experiences. A task-based lesson follows the following stages (task cycle): pre-task, task, planning, report, analysis, post-task. Test-item format: In an assessment task, learners ’ skills and content knowledge are tested with different questions or other types of items to which they have to respond. Item-response formats can be fixed, structured, or open-ended. In fixed formats, there are normally clearly defined and unambiguous answers such as true/ false statements. In structured item-response formats, several answers are usually acceptable, but within narrow limits. Examples of open-ended response formats are short paragraphs, compositions or free oral responses in a role-playing activity. Threshold Theory: The threshold theory as put forward by Cummins (1976) posits a bilingual competence threshold only above which the positive advantages of bilingualism in the form of accelerated cognitive growth may (fully) emerge. Total immersion: In total immersion settings the whole curriculum is taught in a language different from the language of the surrounding or education system, contrary to partial immersion. Total Physical Response (TPR): Total Physical Response is a method for teaching languages that was invented by the teacher and researcher James Asher. Asher stated that language teachers should make use oft he same kind of interaction that carers use with their babies. He observed that the early communication between carers and babies is dominated by imperatives on the side of the carer and nonverbal reactions on the side of the baby, e. g. the carer ’ s instruction to put a toy into a box and the correct or incorrect reaction on the side of the child. In the same fashion students in beginner class are asked, e. g. to stand up, get something out of their bags, etc. The idea is that students are not forced to speak the language before they feel ready to do so. Teachers can still check students ’ understanding and progress by viewing their nonverbal reactions however. Transition: In Germany, preschools, primary schools and secondary schools are organized independently of each other, both in terms of administration and of the respective curricula. The transition from the parental home into the educational system, and from one educational institution to another, thus represents a challenge not only for each individual child but also for teachers and decision makers in educational boards. Catering to the needs of the children by providing a smooth transition within the systems different levels has been subject of much recent debate both among practitioners and researchers. While several models and projects are in the course of being assessed (e. g. the so-called education houses), no nationwide model has yet been adapted. In foreign language Glossary 129 programmes the situation is even more transitory due to the recent implementation of English as a subject in primary school at grade 1 (Baden-Württemberg, Nordrhein-Westfalen) or grade 3, as well as the rise of different forms of bilingual education across all levels, which results in a rather heterogeneous level in the foreign language at the beginning of secondary school. Washback: The impact an assessment potentially has on teaching and learning is called washback or washback effect. Validity of assessment: The question here is to what extent tests assess what they purport to assess and to what extent the interpretations that teachers and assessors make on the basis of an assessment are meaningful and appropriate. 130 Glossary Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” Henriette Dausend In einem bilingualen und transcurricularen Modul erarbeiten die Schülerinnen und Schüler im Mathematik-, Sachkunde- und Kunstunterricht fächerverbindend das Zusammenleben in einer Stadt. Jeder Lerner erstellt sein eigenes Haus, welches mit den Häusern der anderen Lerner in einer Stadt zusammengefügt wird. Dabei werden die individuellen Wünsche der Schülerinnen und Schüler mit funktionalen Aspekten des Zusammenlebens verbunden. Während die Lerner im ersten Stock ihre eigene Wohnung gestalten können, erstellen sie für die „ Ladenzeile “ im Erdgeschoss ein Geschäft, eine Behörde oder eine Institution, die in einer Stadt funktional notwendig sind. Das Ziel ist es, eine gemeinsame Stadt zu erschaffen und die Rollen darin aufzuteilen. Im Sachkundeunterricht erfahren die Schülerinnen und Schüler, welche Geschäfte, Institutionen und Behörden in einer Stadt vorhanden sein müssen, damit ein geregeltes Zusammenleben möglich ist. Im Mathematikunterricht wird die Architektur der Häuser unter Berücksichtigung statischer Zusammenhänge thematisiert und ein Grundriss für die Häuser entwickelt. Im Kunstunterricht werden die Häuser je nach Funktion von den Lernern als Dekorateure gestaltet und schlussendlich in einer Collage zusammengefügt. Der Inhalt Das Thema My House - Our Town deckt alle Themenbereiche ab, die für das Lernen moderner Fremdsprachen in der Grundschule vorgesehen sind. Die persönliche Lebenswelt wird durch die freie Gestaltung der oberen Wohneinheit einbezogen und mit dem Themenfeld öffentlich-gesellschaftlicher Lebenswelten verbunden, indem jede Schülerin und jeder Schüler die Verantwortung für sich selbst sowie für die Allgemeinheit übernimmt. In der Diskussion über die Nutzung, die Gestaltung und die Zuteilung von Geschäftsflächen werden gesellschaftliche Lebenswelten thematisiert. Da diese Auseinandersetzung von den kulturellen Erfahrungen, Einsichten und Einstellungen der Lerner darüber, welche Geschäfte und Behörden in einer Stadt zu finden sind, im Fokus stehen, wird auch die dritte relevante Ebene, der kulturellen Lebenswelten, in den Unterrichtsdiskurs integriert (vgl. HKM 2010 a: 18). Im Mathematikunterricht werden im Inhaltsfeld Muster und Strukturen geometrische Muster erkannt und beschrieben sowie eigene Muster für die Wohnhäuser erzeugt. Die Schülerinnen und Schüler zeichnen in der handelnden Auseinandersetzung mit Raum und Form einfache geometrische Formen mit Hilfsmitteln (unter Beachtung von Symmetrien). Statische Besonderheiten in der Architektur von Häusern werden erläutert und umgesetzt, indem Längen und Flächen - angelehnt an eine lebensnahe Problemstellung - gemessen und verglichen werden (Größen und Messen) (vgl. HKM 2010 b: 18 f). Im Sachkundeunterricht ist das Thema im Bereich Gesellschaft und Politik relevant, da die Schülerinnen und Schüler ihr Zusammenleben fiktiv gestalten, indem sie Regeln aushandeln, individuelle Wünsche benennen, Bedürfnisse anderer sowie der Gruppe wahrnehmen und eine soziale Kultur gemeinsam aufbauen. „ Räume demokratischen Handelns werden durch die gemeinsame Gestaltung des Zusammenlebens in der Schule sowie Reflexion und Übertragung auf andere gesellschaftliche Bereiche erfahrbar “ (vgl. HKM 2010 c: 19). Ergänzend wird das Themenfeld Raum angesprochen, indem die Lerner ihren unmittelbaren Lebensraum erkunden, gestalten und auf diese Weise Orientierung in geografischen und sozialen Räumen schaffen (vgl. ebd. 20). Im Kunstunterricht werden die Bereiche Malerei und Zeichnung genutzt, um mit der Linie als wesentlichem Element, Flächen, Muster und Strukturen zu schaffen, welche die mathematischen Berechnungen der Häuser in ihren Konturen darstellen. Diese Konturen werden gestaltet, indem Farben und Farbmischungen bewusst eingesetzt werden, um bestimmte Funktionen der Wohneinheit sowie der Ladenzeile auszudrücken und gegeneinander abzugrenzen. Im Sinne des Themenfeldes Plastik werden die Häuser zu einer Collage zusammengefügt. (* Wenn ausreichend Zeit zur Verfügung steht, können dreidimensionale Modelle erstellt werden. Je nach Können der Schülerinnen und Schüler werden diese im Mathematikunterricht rechnerisch hergeleitet.) (vgl. HKM 2010 d: 19 f). Ziele des Moduls Sachkunde Die Schülerinnen und Schüler beschreiben ihre Traumwohnung, indem sie ihre Wünsche für eine positive Wohnatmosphäre benennen. benennen gesellschaftliche Einrichtungen in ihrer Umgebung und ergänzen diese um Wünsche. nehmen die Wünsche ihrer Klassenkameraden wahr und einigen sich auf eine bestimmte Anzahl unterschiedlicher Geschäfte, Institutionen und Behörden. Mathematik Die Schülerinnen und Schüler benennen den Aufbau von Häusern, indem sie Bildbeispiele beschreiben, und stellen Vermutungen über die Statik derselben an. erstellen maßstabsgetreue Skizzen von Häusern, indem sie Wandmeter in Kastenlängen umrechnen. zeichnen die Konturen der Häuser, indem sie nach mathematischer Berechnung geometrische Formen erstellen. Kunst Die Schülerinnen und Schüler setzen Eindrücke und Ideen kreativ um, indem sie ihre Wohnungen frei sowie die Ladenzeile nach Absprache individuell gestalten. setzen Farben gezielt ein, indem sie Konturen unter Beachtung von Farbwirkungen und der Bildordnung gestalten. zeigen ästhetisches Verständnis sowie Einsichten in die Werke anderer, indem sie alle Häuser gemeinsam in einem Modell anordnen. 132 Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” bestimmen demokratisch, welcher Lerner welche gesellschaftliche Funktion in seiner Ladenzeile repräsentiert. Zielsprache Die Schülerinnen und Schüler äußern Ideen und Wünsche, indem jeder eigene sowie kollektiv relevante Aspekte der Stadt im Plenum einbringt. benutzen Fachtermini, indem Begriffe der Berechnung und Statik (statics, foundation, stabitily/ stable, wall, pillar, roof, ceiling, architect, construction worker, wood, steel, stone, strength of materials) eingeführt und gesellschaftlich bedeutsamer Einrichtungen (school, supermarket, butcher, bakery, cafe, town hall, chemistry, dentist, doctor, fire brigade, police, etc.) wiederholt werden. reagieren auf Anweisungen in der Zielsprache, indem sie Aufgabenstellungen umsetzen. Zu fördernde Kompetenzen Fach Kompetenzen (vgl. HKM 2010 a-d und Kap. 5) Die Schülerinnen und Schüler Englisch Hörverstehen verstehen einfache Arbeitsanweisungen und reagieren darauf folgerichtig. Sprechen beantworten einfache Fragen, führen kurze Dialoge in vertrauten Alltags- und Routinesituationen aus und greifen auf bekannte Sprachmuster zurück. Lesen und Leseverstehen lesen einfache, bekannte Wortbilder und vertraute Sätze. Schreiben schreiben lautsprachlich gesicherte Wörter nach Vorlage ab und setzen aus bekannten sprachlichen Mitteln neue Sätze zusammen. Transkulturelle Kompetenz geben Informationen über sich und benennen Gemeinsamkeiten mit und Unterschiede zu anderen Kulturen (auf Deutsch und/ oder anderen Sprachen). Sprachlernkompetenz gehen experimentierfreudig und ungehemmt mit der fremden Sprache um. unterscheiden zwischen der deutschen und der englischen Sprache. Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” 133 Fach Kompetenzen (vgl. HKM 2010 a-d und Kap. 5) Die Schülerinnen und Schüler Sachkunde Darstellen und Formulieren beschreiben Institutionen in einer Stadt und benennen deren Bedeutung. verwenden treffende Begriffe und Symbole. leisten zu Planungs- und Auswertungsgesprächen einen sachbezogenen Beitrag. versprachlichen Beobachtungen, Vermutungen, Erkenntnisse und Empfindungen. Dokumentieren und Präsentieren halten ihre Ergebnisse in geeigneter Form fest. prüfen Argumente und akzeptieren, modifizieren oder verwerfen diese. Informationen, Sachverhalte und Situationen beurteilen unterscheiden reale Gegebenheiten von fiktiven Vorstellungen und virtuellen Darstellungsformen. Mathematik Darstellen vergleichen Darstellungen unterschiedlicher Häuser miteinander und bewerten diese. entwickeln eigene Darstellungen von Häusern auf Grundlage statischer Verhältnisse. Problemlösen erfassen mathematische Fragestellungen und Zusammenhänge. formulieren Erkenntnisse in eigenen Worten. Kommunizieren beschreiben ihr Vorgehen, vollziehen Lösungswege anderer nach und reflektieren diese gemeinsam. Problem lösen berechnen Verhältnisse und Längenmaße und setzen diese in geometrische Formen um. Kunst Sehen, Wahrnehmen, Erfahren beschreiben Bilder und Gestaltungsmittel. erkennen und benennen Farbwirkungen und die Bildordnungen in den Häusern und beschreiben die Wirkung dieser. Planen, Gestalten, Handeln finden Ideen und Darstellungsmöglichkeiten zur bildnerischen Gestaltung der Häuser. gestalten ihre Häuser kreativ und zielorientiert. erproben, vergleichen und verwenden Farben und Farbwirkungen. Verstehen, Begreifen, Erklären präsentieren eigene Bilder angemessen und nehmen die Anregungen anderer auf. reflektieren bildnerische Prozesse und Ergebnisse. 134 Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” Ablauf des Moduls (unter Berücksichtigung didaktisch-methodischer Entscheidungen) Der Unterricht im Sachfach und in Mathematik kann parallel durchgeführt werden. Die Arbeit im Kunstunterricht baut auf den erworbenen Kompetenzen sowie den erstellten Produkten dieser beiden Lernphasen auf. Prinzipiell ist der Unterricht in allen Fächern in der englischen Sprache durchführbar. Das Verstehen kann durch Gestik und Mimik, Realia, Paraphrasieren oder weitere scaffolding Techniken unterstützt werden. Bei Problemen in der zielsprachlichen Produktion sollten die Schülerinnen und Schüler auch auf Deutsch antworten dürfen, um die inhaltliche Komplexität der sachfachlichen Themen zu wahren. In diesem Fall sind die Aussagen von der Lehrkraft in der Zielsprache wiederholend in das Unterrichtsgespräch einzubauen. In Partner- und Gruppenarbeitsphasen bietet sich den Lernern zudem die Möglichkeit ihre Herkunftssprachen zur Verständigung einzusetzen. In den folgenden Verlaufsplänen sind die sprachlichen Phasen für das Englisch (E), das Deutsche (D) und die Herkunftssprachen (H) ausgewiesen. Sachunterricht Die Schülerinnen und Schüler beschreiben ihre Traumwohnung, indem sie ihre Wünsche für eine positive Wohnatmosphäre benennen. benennen gesellschaftliche Einrichtungen in ihrer Umgebung und ergänzen diese um Wünsche. nehmen die Wünsche ihrer Klassenkameraden wahr und einigen sich auf eine bestimmte Anzahl unterschiedlicher Geschäfte, Institutionen und Behörden. bestimmen demokratisch, welcher Lerner welche gesellschaftliche Funktion in seiner Ladenzeile repräsentiert. Phase Handlungen Sozialform Material Einstieg Die Lehrkraft (LK) führt in das Thema My House - Our Town ein, indem ein Wimmelbild einer Stadt an die Wand geworfen wird (AB 1). Die Schülerinnen und Schüler (SuS) beschreiben das Bild im Anschluss an die Impulsfrage „ What can you see in the picture? “ je nach Könnensstand in der Zielsprache (E/ D). Die LK ordnet den benannten Orten, Geschäften und Institutionen im Wimmelbild Wortkarten zu (KV 2). Plenum Wimmelbild AB 1, Wortkarten KV 2, Tafel Erarbeitung 1 Im Anschluss fragt die LK die SuS „ What do you wish for in a perfect town? “ (* Das Verständnis kann durch Gestik und Mimik sowie das Paraphrasieren der Frage gesichert werden). Die Aussagen der SuS werden von der LK neben das Wimmelbild an die Tafel geschrieben. Anschließend ergänzen die SuS Plenum, Einzelarbeit Tafel, AB 1 Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” 135 Phase Handlungen Sozialform Material auf AB 1 die Geschäfte und Behörden, indem sie nach Vorlage von der Tafel abschreiben (E). Fehlende Gebäude werden eingezeichnet und ebenfalls beschriftet (E). Sicherung 1 Mit Hilfe von Wortkarten (,welche die Lehrkraft ausfüllt, während die SuS AB 1 bearbeiten,) werden die Begriffe aus der mind-map von den SuS in das Wimmelbild ergänzt. Im Anschluss wird ein SuS als Verantwortlicher für je einen Laden, eine Behörde, eine Institution usw. bestimmt (* Es sollte versucht werden im Plenum ein Verfahren zu finden, nach welchem eine demokratische Zuteilung möglich ist. Andernfalls kann gelost werden.) Die SuS markieren ihren Zuständigkeitsbereich in ihrer Karte auf AB 1 mit einem roten Kreis. Plenum Wortkarten, KV 2 Erarbeitung 2 Im Partnerinterview beschreibt je ein SuS, wie er gerne wohnen möchte, indem er Gegenstände und Begebenheiten in der Zielsprache zu benennen versucht und bei Problemen seine Herkunftssprache oder die deutsche Sprache nutzt (E/ H/ D). Gemeinsam erstellen die Partner eine zielsprachige Liste über die Präferenzen jedes Einzelnen (AB 2) (E). (*Differenzierung: Verschiedene Hilfsangebote, wie Bildwörterbücher, Hilfekarten usw. sollten je nach Könnensstand der Lerner angeboten werden.) Partnerarbeit AB 2 Sicherung 2 Im Plenum werden die Wünsche diskutiert, indem jeder SuS einen Aspekt benennt, der für seinen individuellen Lebensraum wichtig ist ( „ I would like to have . . . “ ), und seinen Nachbarn nach einem seiner Wünsche fragt ( „ What do you wish for in your perfect flat? “ ) (E). Nachdem alle SuS Aspekte genannt haben, wird überlegt, welche Werte für alle gemeinsam gelten (E/ D). Diese Hitliste wird von der LK an der Tafel festgehalten und von den SuS abgeschrieben, um die individuellen Präferenzen mit den eigenen Vorstellungen vergleichen zu können (E) (AB 2). Plenum, Einzelarbeit AB 2 136 Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” Mathematik Die Schülerinnen und Schüler benennen den Aufbau von Häusern, indem sie Bildbeispiele beschreiben, und stellen Vermutungen über die Statik derselben an. erstellen maßstabsgetreue Skizzen von Häusern, indem sie Wandmeter in Kastenlängen umrechnen. zeichnen die Konturen der Häuser, indem sie nach mathematischer Berechnung geometrische Formen erstellen. Phase Handlungen Sozialform Material Einstieg Die LK hängt Bilder von drei unterschiedlichen Häusern an die Tafel (KV 1). Auf die Frage „ What can you see in the pictures? “ beschreiben die SuS die drei Häuser in der Zielsprache (E). Die SuS benennen die Unterschiede zwischen den Häusern ( „ What is different between house 1 and house 2? . . . “ ) sowie das Haus, welches ohne äußere Stützen stehen kann, und begründen ihre Aussage (E/ D). Die LK sammelt die Antworten an der Tafel (E). Plenum KV 1, Tafel Erarbeitung 1 Die SuS formulieren Regeln, welche beim Bau eines Hauses eingehalten werden müssen, indem jeder SuS mindestens drei Sätze bildet - die Notizen an der Tafel dienen als Hilfe. (*Differenzierung: Die Sätze können auf Englisch oder Deutsch formuliert werden). In Gruppen aus vier SuS stellen sich die Lerner ihre Regeln gegenseitig vor und fügen die Regeln, welche sich nicht doppeln, zusammen (E/ H/ D). Einzelarbeit, Gruppenarbeit AB 3 Sicherung 1 Die Gruppen tragen ihre Regeln im Plenum vor und entscheiden, welche der Regeln in die Liste der Hinweise zum Bauen von Häusern aufgenommen werden (E/ H/ D). Diese werden an der Tafel festgehalten und die SuS ergänzen die Regeln, welche sie bisher auf ihrem AB notiert haben (E). Plenum Tafel, AB 3 Erarbeitung 2 Die SuS fertigen mit einem Partner mindestens zwei Skizzen von Häusern an, indem sie eine konkrete Einheit von Kästchenlängen für einen Meter festlegen und mit Lineal und Bleistift, Linien und Formen zu Grundrissen verbinden (E/ H/ D). Die SuS formulieren eine kurze schriftliche Begründung für die Wahl der Architektur eines jeden Hauses (unter Rückbezug auf die Hinweise zum Bauen von Häusern) (E). Partnerarbeit min. 2 x DIN A4 kariert pro Partnerteam Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” 137 Phase Handlungen Sozialform Material Sicherung 2 Jedes Partnerteam stellt sein favorisiertes Design im Sitzkreis vor, indem es dieses zeigt, kurz beschreibt und die Begründung vorträgt (E). Die übrigen SuS geben Rückmeldung, inwieweit die Hinweise zum Bauen von Häusern eingehalten worden sind und ob - ihrer Meinung nach - das Haus so umgesetzt werden kann (E/ D). Im Anschluss an die Feedbackrunde zeichnet jeder SuS sein Haus in Reinform. Plenum (Halbkreis) Skizzen, 1 x DIN A4 kariert pro SuS Kunst Die Schülerinnen und Schüler setzen Eindrücke und Ideen kreativ um, indem sie ihre Wohnungen frei sowie die Ladenzeile nach Absprache individuell gestalten. setzen Farben gezielt ein, indem sie Konturen unter Beachtung von Farbwirkungen und der Bildordnung gestalten. zeigen ästhetisches Verständnis sowie Einsichten in die Werke anderer, indem sie alle Häuser gemeinsam in einem Modell anordnen. Phase Handlungen Sozialform Material Einstieg Die LK hängt drei Beispiele von gestalteten Häusern auf (Vorlage: House 3 von KV 1). Die SuS beschreiben die Einrichtung der Wohnungen sowie der Ladenzeilen (E/ D). Die SuS pausen ihre im Mathematik gezeichneten Häuser auf weißen Pappkarton ab. Plenum 3 x Haus Nr. 3 von KV 1, Pappkarton (weiß) Erarbeitung 1 Die SuS wählen fünf Gegenstände von AB 2 aus und skizzieren diese in ihrer Wohnung. Mit einem Partner überlegen sie, welche fünf Gegenstände sie in ihre Ladenzeile einfügen wollen (E/ H/ D). Einzelarbeit, Partnerarbeit AB 2, Häuser, Bleistifte Sicherung 1 Jedes Partnerteam bespricht die Ideen mit der LK, indem die Bleistiftskizzen gezeigt und farbliche Gestaltungsideen besprochen werden (E/ D). Partnerarbeit Häuser Erarbeitung 2 Die SuS zeichnen die ausgewählten Gegenstände in ihre Wohnung sowie die Ladenzeile und gestalten diese, indem sie Farben funktional einsetzen und Flächen füllen. Die SuS schneiden ihr Haus entlang der Linien aus. Einzelarbeit Farben, Häuser 138 Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” Phase Handlungen Sozialform Material Sicherung 2 Alle Häuser werden auf dem Boden ausgelegt. Die SuS legen fest, in welcher Zuordnung die Häuser in der Stadt anzuordnen sind und kleben diese auf eine große Pappe (E/ D). Plenum (Sitzkreis) Pappkarton A0 (grau, grün oder braun) Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” 139 140 Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” 141 Worksheet 1 (AB 1) 142 Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” 2a Interview 2b My personal list 2c List of my class Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” 143 How to build houses 144 Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” Literatur Hessisches Kultusministerium (HKM) (2010 a): Bildungsstandards und Inhaltsfelder. Das neue Kerncurriculum für Hessen. Primarstufe. Moderne Fremdsprachen. Online: http: / / www.iq.hessen.de/ irj/ servlet/ prt/ portal/ prtroot/ slimp.CMReader/ HKM_15/ IQ _Internet/ med/ d9 d/ d9d1d584-b546-821 f-012 f-31e2389e4818,22222222-2222-22 22-2222-222222222222 (07/ 11/ 2012). Hessisches Kultusministerium (HKM) (2010 b): Bildungsstandards und Inhaltsfelder. Das neue Kerncurriculum für Hessen. Primarstufe. Mathematik. Online: http: / / www.iq. hessen.de/ irj/ servlet/ prt/ portal/ prtroot/ slimp.CMReader/ HKM_15/ IQ_Internet/ med / b3 d/ b3d1d584-b546-821 f-012 f-31e2389e4818,22222222-2222-2222-2222-2222 22222222 (07/ 11/ 2012). Hessisches Kultusministerium (HKM) (2010 c): Bildungsstandards und Inhaltsfelder. Das neue Kerncurriculum für Hessen. Primarstufe. Sachkunde. Online: http: / / www.iq. hessen.de/ irj/ servlet/ prt/ portal/ prtroot/ slimp.CMReader/ HKM_15/ IQ_Internet/ med / 7ad/ 7ad1d584-b546-821 f-012 f-31e2389e4818,22222222-2222-2222-2222-22222 2222222 (07/ 11/ 2012). Hessisches Kultusministerium (HKM) (2010 d): Bildungsstandards und Inhaltsfelder. Das neue Kerncurriculum für Hessen. Primarstufe. Kunst. Online: http: / / www.iq.hessen. de/ irj/ servlet/ prt/ portal/ prtroot/ slimp.CMReader/ HKM_15/ IQ_Internet/ med/ 7cb/ 7c b1d584-b546-821 f-012 f-31e2389e4818,22222222-2222-2222-2222-22222222222 2 (07/ 11/ 2012). Bilingual Module: “ My House - Our Town ” 145 References Abendroth-Timmer, D. (2007), The Bilingual Module - A New Approach to Integrating Modern Languages into Subject-Specific Teaching. Goethe Institute Online CLIL Journal [Online. Available at: http: / / www.goethe.de/ ges/ spa/ dos/ ifs/ met/ en2855768.htm, last accessed 2 October 2012]. Abendroth-Timmer, D. (2010), Spanisch in der Grundschule. Mehrsprachigkeit erleben und handelnd erproben. Grundschulunterricht/ Sachunterricht 3/ 2010, 10 - 11. Abutalebi, J. & Green, D. (2007), Bilingual Language Production: The Neurocognition of Language Representation and Control. Journal of Neurolinguistics 20, 242 - 275. Achermann, B. & Ramsey, G. (2011), First Choice Assessment Pack. Lernzielkontrolle. Zürich: Lehrmittelverlag Zürich. Allen, P. (1991), Mr Archimedes ’ Bath. Australia: William Collins. Altarriba, J. & Heredia, R. R. (eds.) (2008), An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. P. W., Airasian, K. A., Cruikshank, R. E., Mayer, P. R., Pinrich, J. R. & Wittrock M. C. (eds.) (2001), A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. New York: Longman. Angebote des Vereins für frühe Mehrsprachigkeit an Kindertageseinrichtungen und Schulen FMKS e. V. Informationsblatt der FMKS Dezember 2009 [Online. Available at: http: / / www.fmks-online.de/ _wd_showdoc.php? pic=719, last accessed 5 September, 2012] Asher, J. J. (1986), Learning Another Language through Actions. The Complete Teacher ’ s Guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks. Auer, K. & Dahlin, L. (2010), Keith Haring: Pop-Art Meets CLIL. In: Massler, U., Burmeister, P. (Hrsg.) (2010), CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann. Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996), Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2008), Multilingualism, Cognition and Creativity. International CLIL Research Journal 1 (1), 4 - 19. Baker, C. (2011), Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (5 th ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Barac, R. & Bialystok, E. (2012), Bilingual Effects on Cognitive and Linguistic Development: Role of Language, Cultural Background, and Education. Child Development 83, 413 - 422. Bathia, T. K. & Ritchie, W. C. (2004), The Handbook of Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Bauersfeld, H. (1995), “ Language Games ” in the Mathematics Classroom: Their Function and Their Effects. In: Cobb, P. & Bauersfeld, H. (eds.), The Emergence of Mathematical Meaning: Interaction in Classroom Cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 271 - 291. Bechler, S. (forthc.), Bilinguale Module in der Grundschule. Integriertes Inhalts- und Sprachlernen im Fächerverbund Mensch, Natur und Kultur. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang. Beier-Marchesi, K. (2009), “ Parole in movimento ” - Sprache in Bewegung. Überlegungen zu einem DaZ-Projekt in der Primarstufe. In: Fäcke, Ch. (Hrsg.): Sprachbegegnung und Sprachkontakt in europäischer Dimension. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 185 - 201. Bentley, K. (2009), Primary Curriculum Box. CLIL Lessons and Activities for Younger Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ben-Zeev, S. (1977), The Influence of Bilingualism on Cognitive Strategy and Cognitive Development. Child Development 48, 1009 - 1018. Bergner, G. (2012), Where is the moon? Von der Story zum Schattenspiel. Grundschulmagazin Englisch 4/ 2012, 24 - 28. Bialystok, E. (1992), Attentional Control in Children ’ s Metalinguistic Performance and Measures of Field Independence. Developmental Psychology 28, 654 - 664. Bialystok, E. (2001), Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, E. (2005), Consequences of Bilingualism for Cognitive Development. In: Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 417 - 432. Bialystok, E. & Barac, R. (2012), Emerging Bilingualism: Dissociating Advantages for Metalinguistic Awareness and Executive Control. Cognition 122, 67 - 73. Bialystok, E. & Martin, M. M. (2004), Attention and Inhibition in Bilingual Children: Evidence from the Developmental Change Card Sort Task. Developmental Science 7, 325 - 339. Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Green, D. W. & Gollan, T. H. (2009), Bilingual Minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 10, 89 - 129. Bialystok, E., Peets, K. & Moreno, S. (in press), Producing Bilinguals through Immersion Education: Development of Metalinguistic Awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics. Bleyhl, W. (2009), Wie sinnvoll ist die Forderung, den Fremdsprachenunterricht an der Grundschule wieder abzuschaffen? Take off! 1/ 2009, 48 - 49. Bludau, M. (1998), Vom Abholen und Weiterführen. Neusprachliche Mitteilungen 51 (3), 157 - 160. Bollig, M. & Bollig, O. (2006), Mary ’ s Friends. Euskirchen: Bollig Verlag. Bos, W., Lankes, E.-M., Prenzel, M., Schwippert, K., Valtin, R. & Walther, G. (Hrsg.) (2004), IGLU. Einige Länder der Bundesrepublik Deuschland im nationalen und internationalen Vergleich. Münster: Waxmann. Böttger, H. (2009), Englischunterricht in der 5. Klasse an Realschulen und Gymnasien. Nürnberg: Applied Linguistics - Friedrich Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. Böttger, H. (2012), Learning in Two Languages. A Foreign Language in Primary School Subjects. In: Egger, G. & Lechner, Ch. (eds.), Primary CLIL Around Europe. Learning in Two Languages in Primary Education. Marburg: Tectum Verlag, 96 - 116. Bredenbröker, W. (2000), Förderung der fremdsprachlichen Kompetenz durch bilingualen Unterricht - Empirische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang. Breen, M. P. & Candlin, C. (1980), The Essentials of a Communicative Curriculum. Language Teaching 1/ 2, 89 - 112. Breidbach, S. (2006), Bilinguales Lehren und Lernen. Was hat das Denken mit Sprechen und Sprache zu tun? Praxis Fremdsprachenunterricht 3, 10 - 15. Breidbach, S. & Viebrock, B. (2012), CLIL in Germany: Results from Recent Research in a Contested Field of Education. International CLIL Research Journal 1 (4), 1 - 14. Brune, J. (2003), I like skipping! Bewegungsspiele in der Turnhalle. Grundschulmagazin Englisch 6/ 2003, 23 - 26. Bruner, J. (1990), Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burmeister, P. (2006), Immersion und Sprachunterricht im Vergleich. In: Pienemann, M., Keßler J.-U. & Roos E. (Hrsg.), Englischerwerb in der Grundschule. Paderborn: Schöningh, 197 - 216. Burmeister, P. (2007), Fremdsprache kontextualisieren. Take off! 2/ 2007, 44. Burmeister, P. (2010), *Did you know that 15 difrent Fish arts in the Kiel Canal live? On Foreign Language Writing in Partial Immersion Primary School Classrooms. In: Diehr, B. & Rymarczyk, J. (eds.), Researching Literacy in a Foreign Language among 148 References Primary School Learners - Forschung zum Schriftspracherwerb in der Fremdsprache bei Grundschülern. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 131 - 145. Burmeister, P. (in press), Immersion. In: Hallet, W. & Königs, F. G. (Hrsg.), Handbuch Bilingualer Unterricht / Content and Language Integrated Learning. Seelze: Klett Kallmeyer. Burmeister, P. & Ewig, M. (2010), Integrating Science and Foreign Language Learning. In: Massler, U. & Burmeister, P. (Hrsg.), CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann, 100 - 106. Burmeister, P. & Massler, U. (2010), Vorwort. In: Massler, U. & Burmeister, P. (Hrsg.), CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann, 7 - 9. Burmeister, P. & Pasternak, R. (2004), Früh und immersiv: Englische Immersion in der Grundschule am Beispiel der Claus-Rixen-Grundschule in Altenholz. In: Fachverband moderne Fremdsprachen fmf, Landesverband Schleswig-Holstein (Hrsg.), Mitteilungsblatt August 2004, 24 - 30. Burmeister, P. & Piske, T. (2008), Schriftlichkeit im fremdsprachlichen Sachfachunterricht an der Grundschule. In: Böttger, H. (Hrsg.), Fortschritte im Frühen Fremdsprachenlernen. Ausgewählte Tagungsbeiträge Nürnberg 2007. München: Domino Verlag, 183 - 193. Burmeister, P., Keßler, J.-U. & Piske, T. (2011), Wie sinnvoll ist Fremdsprachenunterricht in der Grundschule in den Klassen 1 und 2? Take off! 4/ 2011, 48 - 49. Burns, M. (2008), The Greedy Triangle. Jefferson City: Scholastic Bookshelf. Cameron, L. (2001), Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carida, H.Ch. (2011), Planning and Implementing an Educational Programme for the Smooth Transition from Kindergarten to Primary School: The Greek Project in All-Day Kindergartens. The Curriculum Journal 22, 77 - 92. Carl, S., Fehling, A. & Hämmerling, H. (2006), Bilinguale Module an Schulen - Wie geht das? Ein flexibles Unterrichtsmodell. Praxis Fremdsprachenunterricht 3, 26 - 30. Carlson, S. M. & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008), Bilingual Experience and Executive Functioning in Young Children. Developmental Science 11, 282 - 298. Council of Europe (2001), The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Couve de Murville, S. & Lenz, F. (2012), Englisch als Unterrichtssprache: Lernstandserhebungen in einer immersiven Grundschule. In: Lenz, F. (Hrsg.), Bilinguales Lernen - Unterrichtskonzepte zur Förderung sachbezogener und interkultureller Kompetenz. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 79 - 102. Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010), CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1976), The Influence of Bilingualism on Cognitive Growth: A Synthesis of Research Findings and Explanatory Hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism 9, 1 - 43. Cummins, J. (1978), Bilingualism and the Development of Metalinguistic Awareness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 9, 131 - 149. Cummins, J. (1979 a), Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual Children. Review of Educational Research 49/ 2, 222 - 251. Cummins, J. (1979 b), Cognitive/ Academic Language Proficiency, Linguistic Interdependence, the Optimum Age Question and Some Other Matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism 19, 121 - 129. Cummins, J. (1984), Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues and Assessment in Pedagogy. San Diego: College Hill. References 149 Cummins, J. (1991), Interdependence of First and Second Language Proficiency in Bilingual Children. In: Bialystok E. (ed.), Language Processing in Bilingual Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 70 - 89. Curtain, H. & Pesola, C. A. B. (1994), Languages and Children. Making the Match. Foreign Language Instruction for an Early Start Grades K-8. New York: Longman. Dale, L. & Tanner, R. (2012), CLIL Activities: A Resource for Subject and Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dausend, H., Elsner D. & Keßler J.-U. (forthc.), Bilingual, offen, konzeptlos - Was Schulen mit reformpädagogischen Bildungskonzepten zum fremdsprachlichen Lernen versprechen und nicht halten. In: Breidbach, S. & Viebrock, B. (eds.), CLIL: Research, Policy and Practice (working title). Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang. de Courcy, M. C. & Burston, M. (2000), Learning Mathematics through French in Australia. Language and Education 14, 75 - 95. de Houwer, A. (2009), Bilingual First Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. de Jabrun, P. (1997), Academic Achievement in Late Partial Immersion French. Babel 32,2, 20 - 23. de Jong, (2006), Integrated Bilingual Education: An Alternative Approach. Bilingual Research Journal, 30, 1, 23 - 44. [Online. Available at: http: / / brj.asu.edu/ vol30_n01/ art2.pdf, last accessed 5 September 2012] Deuchar, M., & Quay, S. (2000), Bilingual Acquisition: Theoretical Implications of a Case Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dewaele, J.-M. (2000), Three Years Old and Three First Languages. Bilingual Family Newsletter 17, 4 - 5. de Zarobe, Y. R. (2011), Which Language Competencies Benefit from CLIL? An Insight into Applied Linguistics Research. In: de Zarobe, Y. R., Sierra, J. M., del Puerto F. G. (eds.): Content and Foreign Language Intgrated Learning, Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang, 129 - 153. Diehl, D. (2007), A Circle Here, a Square There: My Shapes Book. Asheville, NC: Lark Books. Dietrich, E. (2011), Jump on one leg! Bewegungsspiele für drinnen und draußen. Grundschulmagazin Englisch 5/ 2011, 13 - 16. Dockett, S. & Perry, B. (2001), Starting School: Effective Transitions. Early Childhood Research and Practice 3 (2), 1 - 14. Drexl, D. (2011), Die Erhebung der Unterrichtsqualität im Modellprojekt „ Bildungshaus 3 - 10 “ und erste Ergebnisse. In: Kucharz, D., Irion, T. & Reinhoffer, B. (Hrsg.), Grundlegende Bildung ohne Brüche. Jahrbuch Grundschulforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 73 - 75. Duit, R. (1989), Vorstellung und Experiment. Von der eingeschränkten Überzeugungskraft experimenteller Beobachtungen, Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht - Physik/ Chemie 37: 48, 319 - 321. Echevarrìa, J., Vogt, M. E. & Short, D. (2006), Making Content Comprehensible for Elementary English Learners. The SIOP Model. Boston etc.: Pearson. Eckerth, M., Hein, A. & Hanke, P. (2011), Analysen der sozial-emotionalen Entwicklung von Kindern im Übergang von der Kita zur Grundschule am Beispiel des Selbstkonzepts der Schulfähigkeit - Ergebnisse aus dem FiS-Projekt. In: Kucharz, D., Irion, T. & Reinhoffer, B. (Hrsg.), Grundlegende Bildung ohne Brüche. Jahrbuch Grundschulforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 91 - 94. Edelenbos, P., Johnston, R. & Kubanek, A. (2006), The Main Pedagogical Principles Underlying the Teaching of Languages to Very Young Learners. Languages for the Children of Europe. Published Research, Good Practice and Main Principles. In: Final Report of the EAC 89/ 04, Lot 1 study. Egan, K. (1986), Teaching as Story Telling. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 150 References Egger, G. & Lechner, C. (eds.) (2012), Primary CLIL Around Europe. Learning in Two Languages in Primary Education. Marburg: Tectum Verlag. Ellis, G. (2006), Teacher Competencies in a Story-Based Approach. In: Enever J. & Schmid-Schönbein, G. (eds.), Picture Books and Young Learners of English. München: Langenscheidt, 93 - 107. Ellis, G. & Brewster, J. (2002), Tell It Again! The New Storytelling Handbook for Primary Teachers. London: Penguin. Elsner, D. (2009), ‘ Und wenn ich nichts verstehe, dann denke ich halt nach ‘ . Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in der Grundschule - ein Beispiel. In: Abendroth-Timmer, D., Elsner, D., Lütge, C. & Viebrock, B. (Hrsg.): Handlungsorientierung im Fokus. Impulse und Perspektiven für den Fremdsprachenunterricht im 21. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 89 - 100. Elsner, D. (2010), Englisch in der Grundschule unterrichten. Grundlagen, Methoden, Praxisbeispiele. München: Oldenbourg Verlag. Elsner, D. & Keßler, J.-U. (2011), Bilinguales Lernen in offenen Unterrichtsarrangements - erste Ergebnisse aus der Schulbegleitforschung Hamburg Flachsland und deren Konsequenzen für die Unterrichtsentwicklung. In: Kötter, M. & Rymarczyk, J. (Hrsg.), Fremdsprachenunterricht in der Grundschule: Forschungsergebnisse und Vorschläge zu seiner weiteren Entwicklung. Frankfurt/ Main, New York: Peter Lang, 163 - 183. Elsner, D. & Keßler, J.-U. (2012), Autonomous Learning and CLIL at Primary Level. Results of a Case Study at Flachsland Future School, Hamburg. In: Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (eds.): Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence - Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstätt: Eichstätt Academy Press, 37 - 52. Elsner, D. & Wittkowske, S. (2010), Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht - wieso, weshalb, warum? Grundschulunterricht/ Sachunterricht 3/ 2010, 4 - 7. Enever, J. (2006), The Use of Picture Books in the Development of Critical Visual and Written Literacy in English as a Foreign Language. In: Enever, J. & Schmid-Schönbein, G. (eds.), Picture Books and Young Learners of English. München: Langenscheidt, 59 - 70. Enever, J. & Schmid-Schönbein, G. (eds.) (2006), Picture Books and Young Learners of English. München: Langenscheidt. Engel, G., Groot-Wilken, B. & Thürmann, E. (Hrsg.) (2009), Englisch in der Primarstufe. Chancen und Herausforderungen. Berlin: Cornelsen. European Commission (2008), Language Teaching - Content and Language Integrated Learning. [Online. Available at: http: / / ec.europa.eu/ languages/ language-teaching/ content-and-language-integrated-learning_en.htm, last accessed 30 March 2012]. Eurydice (2006), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe: Country Report: Germany. Brüssel: Europäische Kommission. Ewers, H.-H. (Hrsg.) (1991), Kindliches Erzählen - Erzählen für Kinder. Erzählerwerb, Erzählwirklichkeit und erzählende Kinderliteratur. Weinheim: Beltz. Faust, G., Wehner, F. & Kratzmann, J. (2011), Zum Stand der Kooperation von Kindergarten und Grundschule. Journal of Educational Research 3/ 2, 38 - 61 [Online. Available at: http: / / www.j-e-r-o.com/ , last accessed 11 January 2013]. Fehling, S. (2008), Language Awareness und bilingualer Unterricht: Eine komparative Studie. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang. Fehling, S. & Finkbeiner, C. (2002), Evaluation von Schulleistungen im bilingualen Sachfachunterricht In: Finkbeiner, C. (Hrsg.) (2002), Bilingualität und Mehrsprachigkeit. Modelle, Projekte, Ergebnisse. Hannover: Schroedel, 22 - 32. Festman, J. & Kersten, K. (2010), Kognitive Auswirkungen von Zweisprachigkeit. In: Massler, U. & Burmeister, P. (Hrsg.), CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann, 38 - 52. References 151 Feynmann, R. P. (2006), The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. 1. San Francisco, CA: Pearson, chpt. 7, page 9. Fishman, J. A. (1972), The Sociology of Language. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Fredericks, A. D. (2008), Science Adventures with Children ’ s Literature. Reading Comprehension and Inquiry-Based Science. Westport, CT: Teacher Ideas Press. Galambos, S. J. & Hakuta, K. (1988), Subject-Specific and Task-Specific Characteristics of Metalinguistic Awareness in Bilingual Children. Applied Psycholinguistics 9, 141 - 162. Garcia, O. (2009), Bilingual Education in the 21 st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009), Code-Switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gebauer, S. K., Zaunbauer, A. C. M. & Möller, J. (2012), Erstsprachliche Leistungsentwicklung im Immersionsunterricht: Vorteile trotz Unterrichts in einer Fremdsprache? Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 26/ 3, 1 - 14. Gegier, B. (2004), Bewegungsspiele in Englisch für Klassenraum und Turnhalle. Mülheim: Verlag an der Ruhr. Genesee, F. (1987), Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Cambridge: Newbury House. Genesee, F. (1989), Early Bilingual Development: One Language or Two? Journal of Child Language, 16, 161 - 179. Genesee, F. (2003), Rethinking Bilingual Acquisition. In: Dewaele J.-M. (ed.), Bilingualism: Challenges and Directions for Future Research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 204 - 229. Genesee, F. (2007), French Immersion and at-Risk Students: A Review of Research Evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review 63/ 5, 655 - 688. Genesee, F. (2008), Early Dual Language Learning. Zero to Three. [Online. Available at: http: / / main.zerotothree.org/ site/ DocServer/ 29 - 1_Genesee.pdf, last accessed 5. 11. 2012]. Gertz, S. E., Portman, D. J. & Sarquis, M. (1996), Teaching Physical Science Through Children ’ s Literature. Middletown, OH: Terrific Science Press. Giallo, R., Treyvaud, K., Matthews, J. & Kienhuis, M. (2010), Making the Transition to Primary School: An Evaluation of a Transition Program for Parents. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology 10, 1 - 17. Gigl, E. (2003), What can we do at the zoo? Bewegungsspiele im Klassenzimmer. Grundschulmagazin Englisch 1/ 2003, 27 - 28. Gopnik, A. & Meltzoff, N. (1998), Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge, MA: Bradford, MIT Press. Green, D. W. (1998), Mental Control of the Bilingual Lexico-Semantic System. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67 - 81. Hallet, W. (1998), The Bilingual Triangle. Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 45(2), 115 - 125. Hamers, J. F. & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000), Bilinguality and Bilingualism. 2 nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Haudeck, H. & Aristov, N. (2010), At the Zoo. Sache - Wort - Zahl 114, 8 - 30. Haudeck, H. & Aristov, N. (2011), Storytelling and Experiments. In: Kirchner, P. & Nörthemann, A. (Hrsg.), Bildung aktiv erleben. Das Lernfestival 2009 an der Pädagogischen Hochschule Ludwigsburg. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren, 103 - 111. Haudeck, H. & Riedl, I. (2006), Let ’ s speak English - auch in anderen Fächern. Grundschule 9, 42 - 46. Haudeck, H., McCafferty, S. & Aristov, N. (2010), Optics and Storytelling. Take off! 1, 22 - 27. Haudeck, H., McCafferty, S. & Aristov, N. (2012), Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule am Beispiel von Storytelling und Experimenten zu Naturphänomenen. 152 References In: Böttger, H. & Schlüter, N. (Hrsg.), Fortschritte im frühen Fremdsprachenlernen. 3. FFF- Konferenz: Ausgewählte Tagungsbeiträge Eichstätt 2011. München: Domino Verlag, 157 - 165. Heine, G. (2010), Musikunterricht auf Englisch - Mehr als Songs und Raps. In Massler, U. & Burmeister, P. (Hrsg.), CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann, 143 - 159. Helms, Dietrich (2004), Musik dreisprachig? Probleme und Chancen eines bilingualen Musikunterrichts. In: Bonnet, A. & Breidbach, S. (Hrsg.), Didaktiken im Dialog. Konzepte des Lehrens und Wege des Lernens im bilingualen Sachfachunterricht. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 291 - 304. Hermanto, N., Moreno, S. & Bialystok, E. (2012), Linguistic and Metalinguistic Outcomes of Intense Immersion Education: How Bilingual? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15, 131 - 145. Herreid, C. F. (2006), Start With a Story: The Case Study Method of Teaching College Science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press Hoban, T. (2000), Cubes, Cones, Cylinders, & Spheres. New York: Greenwillow Books. Hoffmann, C. (2001), Towards a Description of Trilingual Competence. International Journal of Bilingualism 5, 1 - 18. Hollm, J., Hüttermann, A., Keßler, J.-U. & Schlemminger, G. (2010), BiliReal 2012: Bilinguale Züge für Englisch und Französisch in der Realschule - Erste Ergebnisse der wissenschaftlichen Begleitforschung zum Schulversuch in Baden-Württemberg. Beiträge zur Fremdsprachenvermittlung 49/ 2010, 153 - 187. [Online. Available at: http: / / www.vep-landau.de/ bzf/ 2010_49/ _08_Hollm-et-al._153 - 187_.pdf, last accessed 18 September 2012]. Hollm, J., Hüttermann, A., Keßler, J.-U., Schlemminger, G. & Ade-Thurow, B. (Hrsg.) (forthc.), Bilinguales Lehren und Lernen in der Sekundarstufe I. Sprache - Sachfach - Schulorganisation. Landau: Verlag Empirische Bildung. Howatt, A. P. R. (1984), A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huber, T. (2009), Bilingualer Unterricht an Hauptschulen? Ein bilinguales Modul im Fach Religion. Zulassungsarbeit an der Pädagogischen Hochschule Ludwigsburg. Unpublished Thesis. Huhta, A. (2010), Diagnostic and Formative Assessment. In: Spolsky, B. & Hult, F. M. (eds.), The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 469 - 482. Hunn, J., Kesseli, Y. & Sprague, K. (2008 - 2009), Explorers 1 - 3 Assessment Pack. Zürich: Lehrmittelverlag Zürich. Hunt, M., Barnes, A., Powell, B. & Martin, C. (2008), Moving on: The Challenges for Foreign Language Learning on Transition from Primary to Secondary School. Teaching and Teacher Education 24, 915 - 926. Indefrey, P. (2006), A Meta-Analysis of Hemodynamic Studies on First and Second Language Processing: Which Suggested Differences Can We Trust and What Do They Mean? Language Learning 56, 279 - 304. Ioannou-Georgiou, S. & Pavlou, P. (eds.) (2003), Assessing Young Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ioannou-Georgiou, S. & Pavlou, P. (eds.) (2010), Guidelines for CLIL Implementation in Primary and Pre-primary Education. Cyprus: Pedagogical Institute. Jäppinen, A.-K. (2005), Thinking and Content Learning of Mathematics and Science as Cognitional Development in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Teaching Through a Foreign Language in Finland. Language and Education 19/ 2, 147 - 168. Johnstone, R. (2002), Immersion in a Second or Additional Language at School: A Review of the International Research. Stirling: Scottish Centre for Information on Language Teaching. References 153 Jürgens, E. & Standop, J. (2011), Die Perspektive der Grundschule in einem erweiterten Bildungsraum - Der Übergang vom Kindergarten in die Grundschule in die weiterführenden Schulen. In: Bollweg, P. & Otto, H.-U. (Hrsg.), Räume flexibler Bildung. Bildungslandschaft in der Diskussion. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 393 - 417. Kaiser, G. & Schwarz, I. (2003), Mathematische Literalität unter einer sprachlich-kulturellen Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 6(3), 357 - 377. Kellough, R. D. & Kellough, N. G. (1999), Secondary School Teaching: A Guide To Methods And Resources, Planning For Competence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hill. Kempert, S., Saalbach, H., & Hardy, I. (2011), Cognitive Benefits and Costs of Bilingualism in Elementary School Students: The Case of Mathematical Word Problems. Journal of Educational Psychology 103(3), 547 - 561. Kersten, K. (2009 a), Verbal Inflections in Child Narratives. A Study of Lexical Aspect and Grounding. Trier: WVT. Kersten, K. (2009 b), Profiling Child ESL Acquisition: Practical and Methodological Issues. In: Keßler, J.-U., Keatinge, D. (eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition: Empirical Evidence Across Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press, 267 - 293. Kersten, K. (2011), “ Don ’ t make so long, we waiting! ” Forschung und Praxis in bilingualem frühen Fremdsprachenerwerb. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript, Universität Hildesheim. Kersten, K. (ed.) (2010), ELIAS: Early Language and Intercultural Acquisition Studies. Final Report: Public Part. Magdeburg: ELIAS. Kersten, K., Imhoff, C. & Sauer, B. (2002), The Acquisition of English Verbs in an Elementary School Immersion Program in Germany. In: Burmeister, P., Piske, T. & Rohde, A. (eds.). An Integrated View of Language Development. Papers in Honor of Henning Wode. Trier: WVT, 473 - 497. Kersten, K., Fischer, U., Burmeister, P. & Lommel, A. (2009), Leitfaden für die Einrichtung von Immersionsangeboten in Grundschulen. Kiel: FMKS. Kersten, K., Rohde, A., Schelletter, C. & Steinlen, A. K. (eds.) (2010), Bilingual Preschools. Vol. 1 - Learning and Development. Trier: WVT. Keßler, J.-U. (2006), Englischerwerb im Anfangsunterricht diagnostizieren. Linguistische Profilanalysen am Übergang von der Primarstufe in die Sekundarstufe I. Tübingen: Narr Verlag. Keßler, J.-U. (2010), Viele Kinder, viele Sprachen, viele Wege: bilinguales Lernen in der Primarstufe. Grundschulunterricht. Sachunterricht 3/ 2010, 8 - 9. Keßler, J.-U. (2011), Foreign Versus Second Language Acquisition: What primary school EFL classrooms might learn from SLA research In: Elsner, D. & Wildemann, A. (eds.), Language Learning - Language Teaching: Prospects for Teacher Education across Europe. Frankfurt/ Main, New York: Peter Lang, 85 - 100. Keßler, J.-U. & Liebner, M. (2011), Diagnosing L2 Development: Rapid Profile. In: Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (eds.), Studying Processability Theory. An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133 - 147. Keßler, J.-U. & Pittman, G. (forthc.), stART with the heART - Die Sprache der visuellen Kunst im bilingualen Klassenzimmer. Kunstunterricht bilingual. In: Hollm, J., Hüttermann, A., Keßler, J.-U., Schlemminger, G. & Ade-Thurow, B. et al. (Hrsg.), Bilinguales Lehren und Lernen in der Sekundarstufe I. Sprache - Sachfach - Schulorganisation. Landau: Verlag Empirische Bildung. Keßler, J.-U. & Plesser, A. (2011), Teaching Grammar. Paderborn: Schöningh. Keßler, J.-U. & Schlemminger G. (forthc.), Babylonisches Sprachengewirr: Wie benennen wir unseren Untersuchungsgegenstand? Welchen Sprachgebrauch haben die Schülerinnen und Schüler? In: Hollm J., Hüttermann A., Keßler J.-U., Schlemminger G. & Ade-Thurow B. (Hrsg.), Bilinguales Lehren und Lernen in der Sekundarstufe I. Sprache - Sachfach - Schulorganisation. Landau: Verlag Empirische Bildung. 154 References Kharkhurin, A. V. (2007), The Role of Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Cultural Experiences in Bilinguals ’ Divergent Thinking. In: Kecskes I. & Albertazzi L. (eds.), Cognitive Aspects of Bilingualism. Dordrecht: Springer, 175 - 210. Kharkhurin, A. V. (2009), The Role of Bilingualism in Creative Performance on Divergent Thinking and Invented Alien Creatures Tests. Journal of Creative Behavior 43, 59 - 71. Kiely, R. (2009), CLIL - The Question of Assessment. Developing-teachers.com, 1 - 6 [Online. Available at: http: / / www.developingteachers.com/ articles_tchtraining/ clil1_richard. htm, last accessed 30. 03. 2012]. Kim, K. H. S., Relkin, N. R., Lee, K.-M. & Hirsch, J. (1997), Distinct Cortical Areas Associated with Native and Second Languages. Nature 388, 171 - 174. Klieme, E. (2006), Zusammenfassung zentraler Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie. [Online. Available at: http: / / www.kmk.org/ fileadmin/ veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/ 2006/ 2006_03_01-DESI-Ausgewaehlte-Ergebnisse.pdf, last accessed 18 September, 2012]. Klieme, E. (Hrsg.) (2008), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz. Knecht, S. (2008), Wir sind noch am Anfang des Verstehens. Forschung & Lehre 8/ 2008, 514 - 517. Kolb, A. (2011), Kontinuität und Brüche: Der Übergang von der Primarzur Sekundarstufe im Englischunterricht aus der Perspektive der Lehrkräfte. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 22, 145 - 175. Kolb, A. & Mayer, N. (2009), Wachsende Kontinuität - Der Übergang von der Primarzur Sekundarstufe im Englischunterricht. Encuentro 17, 15 - 22. Kolb, A., Mayer, N. & Stotz, D. (2012), Bridging Tasks. Kontinuität zwischen Schulstufen. Erscheint in Grundschulmagazin Englisch 6, 7 - 12. Krajewski, K., Küspert, P. & Schneider, W. (2002), DEMAT 1+. Deutscher Mathematiktest für erste Klassen. Göttingen: Beltz Test. Krajewski, K., Liehm, S. & Schneider, W. (2004), DEMAT 2+. Deutscher Mathematiktest für zweite Klassen. Göttingen: Beltz Test. Kramsch, Claire (1993), Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krashen, S. D. (1982), Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon. Krechel, H. L. (2001), Fachunterricht in Französisch im Rahmen von flexiblen bilingualen Modulen. Ministerium für Schule, Wissenschaft und Forschung des Landes NRW. Kroll, J. F. & De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.) (2005), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press. Kruska, S. K., Zaunbauer, A. C. M. & Möller, J. (2010), Sind Immersionsschüler wirklich leistungsstärker? Ein Lernexperiment. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie 42/ 3, 143 - 153. Kucharz, D., Irion, T. & Reinhoffer, B. (Hrsg.) (2011), Grundlegende Bildung ohne Brüche. Jahrbuch Grundschulforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Küppers, A. & Schmidt, D. (2006), Mit der Mathematik Rechnen! Zahlenzauber im bilingualen Unterricht. In: Küppers, A. & Quetz, J. (Hrsg.), Motivation revisited. Berlin: LIT Verlag, 125 - 134. Küspert, P. & Schneider, W. (1998), Würzburger Leise Leseprobe (WLLP): Ein Gruppenlesetest für die Grundschule. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) (2004), Bildungsstandards im Fach Mathematik für den Primarbereich. [Online. Available at: http: / / www.kmk.org/ fileadmin/ veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/ 2004/ 2004_10_15-Bildungsstandards-Mathe-Primar.pdf, last accessed 18 September, 2012]. References 155 Lambert, W. E. & Tucker, G. R. (1972), Bilingual Education of Children: The St. Lambert Experience. Rowley: Newbury House. Lanz, V. (2010), Newspaper Games - Bilingualer Sportunterricht. In: Massler, U. & Burmeister, P. (Hrsg.), CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann, 160 - 166. Lasagabaster, D. (2008), Foreign Language Competence in Content and Language Integrated Courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal 1/ 2008, 31 - 42. Laurén, C. (1991), A Creativity Index for Studying the Free Written Production for Bilinguals. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 1, 198 - 208. Legutke, M., Müller-Hartmann, A. & Schocker-v. Ditfurth, M. (2009), Teaching English in the Primary School. Stuttgart: Klett. Leisen, J. (Hrsg.) (1999), Methoden-Handbuch Deutschsprachiger Fachunterricht (DFU). Bonn: Varus. Lenz, P. & Studer, Th. (2007), lingualevel. Instrument zur Evaluation von Fremdsprachenkompetenzen. 5.-9. Schuljahr. Bern: Schulverlag plus [Online. Available at: http: / / www. lingualevel.ch, last accessed 2. 4. 2012]. Lenz, Th. (2011), Didaktische Prinzipien und Methoden im bilingualen Unterricht. In: Lenz, Th. & Weible, H. (Hrsg.), Bilinguale Module für die Sekundarstufe I. Braunschweig: Westermann, 3 - 5. Lepschy, A. (2007), Yellow cows and blue horses. Kunstunterricht in der zweiten Klasse - Englisch immersiv. Grundschule 4/ 2007, 41 - 44. Lindfors, J. W. (1999), Children ’ s Inquiry: Using Language to Make Sense of the World. New York: Teachers College Press. Littlejohn, A. & Scofield, H. (2005), First Choice. The Seasons. Topic Book and Activity Book. Zürich: Lehrmittelverlag Zürich. Lommel, A. (2009), Die Verbreitung bilingualer Kitas in Deutschland und die Angebote des FMKS. [Online. Available at: www.fmks.de, last accessed 18 September 2012] Long, M. H. (1996), The Role of Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In: Ritchie, W. & Bahia, T. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Second Language Acquisition. New York: Academic, 413 - 468. Lotherington, H. (2004), Bilingual Education. In: Davies, A. & Elder, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 695 - 718. Lugossy, R. (2006), Browsing and Borrowing your Way to Motivation through Picture Books. In: Enever, J. & Schmid-Schönbein, G. (eds.), Picture Books and Young Learners of English. München: Langenscheidt, 23 - 34. Luttropp, A. (2010), Der Übergang vom Kindergarten/ von der Kindertagesstätte in die Schule. In: Kron, M., Papke, B. & Windisch, M. (Hrsg.), Zusammen aufwachsen. Schritte zur frühen inklusiven Bildung und Erziehung. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, 93 - 97. MacDonald, S. (2009), Shape by Shape. New York: Little Simon. Madrid, D. & Hughes, S. (2011), Introduction to Bilingual and Plurilingual Education. In: Madrid, D. & Hughes, S. (eds.), Studies in Bilingual Education. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 17 - 50. Maier, H. (2006), Mathematikunterricht und Sprache. Kann Sprache mathematisches Lernen fördern? Grundschule 4, 15 - 17. Maier, H. & Schweiger, F. (Hrsg.) (1999), Mathematik und Sprache: Zum Verstehen und Verwenden von Fachsprache im Mathematikunterricht. Wien: öbv & hpt Verlagsgesellschaft. Marian, V. (2008), Bilingual Research Methods. In: Altarriba, J. & Heredia, R. R. (eds.), An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 13 - 38. Marsh, D. & Langé, G. (2000), Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages. Jyväskylä & Milano: TIE-CLIL. 156 References Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (eds.) (2012), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence - Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstätt: Eichstätt Academy Press. Martin, B. (2012), Coloured Language: Identity Perception of Children in Bilingual Programmes. Language Awareness 21 (1 - 2), 33 - 56. Massler, U. (2010 a), Schwierig aber machbar: Leistungsbewertung im CLIL-Unterricht der Grundschule. In: Massler, U. & Burmeister, P. (Hrsg.), CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann, 131 - 142. Massler, U. (2010 b), Assessment in CLIL Learning. In: Ioannou-Georgiou, S. & Pavlou, P. (eds.), Guidelines for CLIL Implementation in Primary and Pre-primary Education. Cyprus: Pedagogical Institute, 115 - 137. Massler, U. (2011), Keep on moving! Welche Chancen bietet der bewegte Unterricht? Grundschulmagazin Englisch 5/ 2011, 7 - 9. Massler, U. (2012), Primary CLIL and its Stakeholder: What Children, Parents and Teachers Think of the Potential Merits and Pitfalls of CLIL Modules in Primary Teaching. International CLIL Research Journal 1 (4), 35 - 46. Massler, U. & Burmeister, P. (Hrsg.) (2010), CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann. Massler, U. & Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2010), Best Practice: How CLIL Works. In: Massler, U. & Burmeister, P. (Hrsg.), CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann, 61 - 75. Massler, U. & Stotz, D. (2011), Von Anfang an Fächergrenzen überschreiten: Aufbau und Beurteilung von fachübergreifenden Sprachkompetenzen. Babylonia 1, 57 - 63. Massler, U. & Stotz, D. (Hrsg.) (forthc.), Handbuch zur Leistungserhebung und Leistungsbewertung im fremdsprachlichen Sachfachunterricht (CLIL) der Primarstufe. Trier: WVT. May, P. (2002), Hamburger Schreib-Probe. (6 th updated and expanded edition). Hamburg: vpm. Mayer, M. (1969), Frog, Where Are You? New York: Pied Piper. Mayer, N. (2003), Blick über den Tellerrand - Frühes Fremdsprachenlernen in den USA und in Deutschland. In: Abendroth-Timmer, D., Viebrock, B. & Wendt, M. (Hrsg.), Text, Kontext und Fremdsprachenunterricht. Festschrift für Gerhard Bach zum 60. Geburtstag. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 319 - 334. McKay, P. (2006), Assessing Young Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. & Frigols, M. J. (2008), Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Oxford: Macmillan Education. Meisel, J. M. (2010), First and Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mentz, O. (2010), Alle Fächer eignen sich - oder doch nicht? Überlegungen zu einem bilingualen Fächerkanon. In: Doff, S. (Hrsg.), Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht in der Sekundarstufe. Tübingen: Narr Verlag. Met, M. (1999), Content-Based Instruction: Defining Terms, Making Decisions. NFLC Reports. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center. Meyer, O. (2010), Towards Quality CLIL: Successful Planning and Teaching Strategies. Pulso: Revista de Educación 33, 11 - 29. Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg (2004): Bildungsplan Grundschule. [Online. Available at: http: / / www.bildung-staerkt-menschen.de/ service/ downloads/ Bildungsplaene/ Grundschule/ Grundschule_Bildungsplan_Gesamt.pdf, last accessed 18 September, 2012]. Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (2008), Richtlinien und Lehrpläne für die Grundschulen in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Frechen: Ritterbach Verlag. References 157 Möller, C. (2010), Coherence and Cohesion in Early Immersion Students ’ L2 Narratives: Implications for Cognitive and Linguistic Development. University of Paderborn, Germany: PhD dissertation [Online. Available at: http: / / digital.ub.uni-paderborn.de/ ubpb/ urn: de: hbz: 466: 2-8899, last accessed 30. 12. 2012]. Müller, M. (2008), Probleme der Leistungsmessung im bilingualen Unterricht. Praxis Fremdsprachenunterricht 4, 37 - 41. Müller, R., Wodzinski, R. & Hopf, M. (2011), Physik allgemein: Schülervorstellungen in der Physik (3. Aufl.). Köln: Aulis Verlag Deubner. Myers-Scotton, C. (2002), Contact Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Niederdrenk-Felgner, C. (2000), Algebra oder Abrakadabra? Das Thema “ Mathematik und Sprache ” aus didaktischer Sicht. Mathematik lehren 99, 4 - 9. Niedersächsisches Kulturministerium (2006), Kerncurriculum für die Grundschule, Schuljahrgänge 1 - 4, Mathematik. Hannover. Obermüller, H. (2003), Put on and take off. Englisch in der Sportstunde. Grundschulmagazin Englisch 1/ 2003, 13 - 17. OECD (2003), The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework - Mathematics, Reading, Science and Problem Solving, Knowledge and Skills. [Online. Available at: http: / / www.oecd.org/ edu/ preschoolandschool/ programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/ pisa2003assessmentframeworkmathematicsreadingscienceandproblemsolvingknowledgeandskills-publications2003.htm, last accessed 18 November 2012]. Paradis, M. (2004), A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Peal, E. & Lambert, W. E. (1962), The Relation of Bilingualism to Intelligence. Psychological Monographs 76, 1 - 23. Peltzer-Karpf, A. & Zangl, R. (1998), Die Dynamik des frühen Fremdsprachenerwerbs. Tübingen: Narr Verlag. Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012), CLIL Research in Europe: Past, Present and Future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15/ 3, 315 - 341. Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (2007), Measuring Bilingualism. In: Auer, P. & Wie, L. (eds.), Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 5: Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Berlin, New York: Mouton/ de Gruyter, 247 - 275. Piepho, H.-E. (2003), Lerneraktivierung im Fremdsprachenunterricht: „ Szenarien “ in Theorie und Praxis. Hannover: Schroedel. Pimm, D. (1987), Speaking Mathematically. Communication in Mathematics Classrooms. London, New York: Routledge. Piske, T. (2006), Zur Entwicklung der Englischkenntnisse bei deutschsprachigen Immersionsschülerinnen und -schülern im Grundschulalter. In: Schlüter, N. (Hrsg.), Fortschritte im Frühen Fremdsprachenunterricht. Ausgewählte Tagungsbeiträge Weingarten 2004. Berlin: Cornelsen, 206 - 212. Piske, T. (2007), Implications of James E. Flege ’ s Research for the Foreign Language Classroom. In: Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J. (eds.), Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning. In Honor of James Emil Flege. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 301 - 314. Piske, T. (2010), Positive and Negative Effects of Exposure to L2 Orthographic Input in the Early Phases of Foreign Language Learning: A Review. In: Diehr, B. & Rymarczyk, J. (eds.), Researching Literacy in a Foreign Language among Primary School Learners - Forschung zum Schriftspracherwerb in der Fremdsprache bei Grundschülern. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 37 - 50. Piske, T. (in press), Frühbeginn allein ist nicht genug: Welchen Einfluss haben Faktoren wie Alter, sprachlicher Input, Geschlecht und Motivation auf die Ausspracheentwicklung und die grammatischen Kenntnisse von Zweitsprachenlernern? In: Bürgel, C. & Siepmann, D. (Hrsg.), Sprachwissenschaft - Fremdsprachendidaktik: Neue Impulse. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. 158 References Piske, T. & Burmeister, P. (2008), Erfahrungen mit früher Immersion an norddeutschen Grundschulen. In: Schlemminger, G. (Hrsg.) (2008), Erforschung des bilingualen Lehrens und Lernens. Forschungsarbeiten und Erprobungen von Unterrichtskonzepten und -materialien in der Grundschule. Baltmansweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren, 131 - 148. Poarch, G. J. & Van Hell, J. G. (2012 a), Cross-Language Activation in Children ’ s Speech Production: Evidence from Second Language Learners, Bilinguals, and Trilinguals. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 111, 419 - 438. Poarch, G. J. & Van Hell, J. G. (2012 b), Executive Functions and Inhibitory Control in Multilingual Children: Evidence from Second-Language Learners, Bilinguals, and Trilinguals. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 113, 535 - 551. Prüfer, K. (forthc.), English-German CLIL Modules in the Mathematics Classroom and their Effect on the Students ’ Willingness to Learn Mathematics. In: Breidbach, S. & Viebrock, B. (eds.), CLIL: Research, Policy and Practice (working title). Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang. Ricciardelli, L. A. (1992), Creativity and Bilingualism. Journal of Creative Behavior 26, 242 - 254. Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001), Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Riedl, I. & Haudeck, H. (2006), Tasting - one of the five senses. Ein bilinguales Unterrichtsbeispiel aus der vierten Klasse. Praxis Grundschule 5, 24 - 32. Ritzhaupt, K., Scherer, N., Massler, U. & Rohde, A. (2011), Set your squares. Fächerintegration durch Square Dance. Grundschulmagazin Englisch 5/ 2011, 9 - 12. Robinson-Riegler, G. & Robinson-Riegler, B. (2011), Cognitive Psychology: Applying the Science of the Mind (3 rd ed.). Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley Longman. Rohde, A. (2002), The Aspect Hypothesis and the L2 Reacquisition of Verbal Inflections. In: Burmeister, P., Piske, T. & Rohde, A. (eds.), An Integrated View of Language Development. Papers in Honor of Henning Wode. Trier: WVT, 135 - 151. Rohde, A. (2004), “ What am I supposed to do with them? ” The Transition from Primary to Secondary Level in an English Immersion Programme. Hochschule Vechta. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. Rohde, A. (2005), Lexikalische Prinzipien im Erst- und Zweitsprachenerwerb. Trier: WVT. Rohde, A. (2012), Englisch ab Klasse 1: Too early? Grundschulmagazin Englisch 3/ 2012, 37 - 38. Rohde, A. & Lepschy, A. (2007), “ Shootforthemoon ” : Englische Immersion in der Grundschule oder ein Vorschlag, das Dilemma des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts zu lösen. In: Bosenius, P., Donnerstag, J. & Rohde, A. (Hrsg.), Der bilinguale Unterricht Englisch aus der Sicht der Fachdidaktiken. Trier: WVT, 1 - 16. Roick, T., Görlitz, D. & Hasselhorn, M. (2004), DEMAT 3+. Deutscher Mathematiktest für dritte Klassen. Göttingen: Beltz Test. Roos, E. (2006), Unterrichtskonzeption und Spracherwerb. In: Pienemann, M., Keßler, J.-U. & Roos, E. (Hrsg.), Englischerwerb in der Grundschule. Paderborn: Schöningh, 217 - 235. Rottmann, B. (2006), Sport auf Englisch: Lerngelegenheiten im bilingualen Sportunterricht. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Ruf, U. & Gallin, P. (1999 a), Dialogisches Lernen in Sprache und Mathematik. Bd. 1. Seelze- Velber: Kallmeyer. Ruf, U. & Gallin, P. (1999 b), Dialogisches Lernen in Sprache und Mathematik. Bd. 2. Seelze- Velber: Kallmeyer. Rymarczyk, J. (2005), Integratives Arbeiten: Zur Verknüpfung von Englisch mit anderen Unterrichtsfächern in der Primarstufe. Primary English 6/ 2005, 3 - 6. References 159 Rymarczyk, J. (2008 a), Früher oder später? Zur Einführung des Schriftbildes in der Grundschule. In: Böttger, H. (Hrsg.), Fortschritte im Frühen Fremdsprachenlernen. Ausgewählte Tagungsbeiträge Nürnberg 2007. München: Domino Verlag, 170 - 182. Rymarczyk, J. (2008 b), Mythos-Box: “ Paralleler Schriftspracherwerb in Erst- und Fremdsprache ist unmöglich! ” Take off! 4/ 2008, 48. Rymarczyk, J. (2010), Sich ein Bild machen und darüber reden. In: Doff, S. (Hrsg.), Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht in der Sekundarstufe. Tübingen: Narr Verlag. Rymarczyk, J. & Diehr, B. (2010), Preface. In: Diehr, B. & Rymarczyk, J. (eds.), Researching Literacy in a Foreign Language among Primary School Learners - Forschung zum Schriftspracherwerb in der Fremdsprache bei Grundschülern. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 9 - 12. Schlemminger, G. (2008), Prolegomena eines oberrheinischen Modells zum bilingualen Lehren und Lernen. In: Schlemminger, G. (Hrsg.), Aspekte bilingualen Lernens. Schwerpunkt Grundschule. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren, 13 - 57. Schmid-Schönbein, G. (2008), Didaktik und Methodik für den Englischunterricht: Kompakter Überblick. Ziele - Inhalte - Verfahren: Für die Klassen 1 bis 4. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Schönau, M. (2011), Rhythm is it! Ganzheitlich lernen mit rhythmicals. Grundschulmagazin Englisch 5/ 2011, 31 - 32. Schütte, M. (2006), Die sprachliche Gestaltung des Lernprozesses im Mathematikunterricht vor dem Hintergrund sprachlich-kultureller Diversität. In: Jungwirth, H. & Krummheuer, G. (Hrsg.), Der Blick nach innen: Aspekte der alltäglichen Lebenswelt Mathematikunterricht. Band 1. Münster etc.: Waxmann, 85 - 117. Schwab, G., Keßler, J.-U. & Hollm, J. (2012): ‘ Bili HauptSchule ’ - Wissenschaftliche Begleitung des Projekts Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht an der Hermann-Butzer Schule Schwieberdingen. Abschlussbericht. Ludwigsburg. Pädagogische Hochschule Ludwigsburg, Abteilung Englisch. Serrurier-Zucker, C., Mayer, N., Kolb, A. & Stotz, D. (2009), Bridging the Gap between Primary and Secondary Foreign Language Teaching: Pri-Sec-Co - Primary and Secondary Continuity in Foreign Language Teaching. Views 18 (3) Special Issue, 130 - 132. Short, D. J. (1993), Assessing Integrated Language and Content Instruction. TESOL QUARTERLY 27/ 4, 627 - 656. Singleton, D. & Ryan, L. (2004), Language Acquisition: the Age Factor. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Smith, Janice (ed.) (1995), Super Science Connections (SSC). Free download available from the Institute for Chemical Education, University of Wisconsin, Madison at http: / / ice. chem.wisc.edu/ SSC.html. [last accessed 13 September 2012]. Snow, M. A. (2001), Content-Based and Immersion Models for Second and Foreign Language Teaching. In: Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston, MA: Heinle, 303 - 318. Snow, M. A. (1990), Instructional Methodology in Immersion Foreign Language Education. In: Padilla, A. M., Fairchild, H. H. & Valadez C. M. (eds.), Foreign Language Education: Issues and Strategies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 156 - 171. Sommerschuh, G. (2003), Von der Grundschule zur Sekundarschule. Ein konstruktiver Übergang. In: Edelhoff, C. (Hrsg.), Englisch in der Grundschule und darüber hinaus. Eine praxisnahe Orientierungshilfe. Frankfurt/ Main: Diesterweg Verlag, 110 - 121. Stafford, T. (2011), Teaching Visual Literacy in the Primary Classroom. London: Routledge. Steiert, C. (2010), Unterrichtsmaterialien für CLIL - CLIL in Unterrichtsmaterialien. In: Massler, U., Burmeister, P. (Hrsg.), CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann, 119 - 130. 160 References Strätz, R., Solbach, R. & Holst-Solbach, F. (2007), Bildungshäuser für Kinder von drei bis zehn Jahren. Expertise hrsg. vom Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Berlin. Swain, M. (1974), French Immersion Programs across Canada: Research Findings. The Canadian Modern Language Review 31, 117 - 129. Swain, M., & Johnson, R. K. (1997), Immersion Education. International Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S, (1982), Evaluating Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2009), New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Thürmann, E. (2009), Anfänge, Übergänge und Perspektiven - Prognosen zur Weiterentwicklung des Englischunterrichts. In: Engel, G., Groot-Wilken, B. & Thürmann, E. (Hrsg.), Englisch in der Primarstufe - Chancen und Herausforderungen. Berlin: Cornelsen, 5 - 22. Tiefenthal, C. (1999), Die Entwicklung des Wortschatzes der Fremdsprache in einem deutschenglisch bilingualen Kindergarten. Englisches Seminar, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Magisterarbeit. Vaid, J. (2002), Bilingualism. In: Ramachandran, V. S. (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Human Brain. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. van de Craen, P., Ceuleers, E. & Mondt, K. (2007 a), Cognitive Development and Bilingualism in Primary Schools: Teaching Maths in a CLIL Environment. In: Marsh, D. & Wolff, D. (eds.), Diverse Contexts - Converging Goals. CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 185 - 200. van de Craen, P., Lochtman K., Ceuleers, E., Mondt, K. & Allain, L. (2007 b), Interdisciplinary Approach to CLIL Learning in Primary Schools in Brussels. In: Dalton- Puffer, C. & Smit, U. (eds.), Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 253 - 274. Varkúti, A. (2010), Linguistic Benefits of the CLIL Approach: Measuring Linguistic Competences. International CLIL Journal 1 (3) 2010, 67 - 80. Verhoeven, L. T. (2006), Transfer in Bilingual Development: The Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis Revisited. Language Learning 44, 381 - 415. Verordnung des Kultusministeriums über die Schülerbeurteilung in Grundschulen und Sonderschulen vom 29. November 1983 (GBI. 1984, S. 3, K. u. U. 1984, S. 11), § 2 Abs. 4. Viebrock, B. (2009 a), M² (Multilingual x Mathematical) - Some Considerations on a Content and Language Integrated Learning Approach to Mathematics. Forum Sprache 61 - 79. Viebrock, B. (2009 b), From Teaching Numeracy to Developing Mathematical Literacy: Materials and Methods for a CLIL Approach to Mathematics. Forum Sprache 122 - 130. Vollmer, H. (2002), Leistungsfeststellung und Leistungsbewertung im bilingualen Sachfachunterricht: Ein Desideratum. In: Breidbach, S., Bach, G. & Wolff, D. (Hrsg.), Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 101 - 121. Volterra, V. & Taeschner, T. (1978), The Acquisition and Development of Language by Bilingual Children. Journal of Child Language, 5, 311 - 326. Vygotsky, L. (1978), Mind and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1986), Thought and Language. Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Waas, L. (2011), A new game. Ein Hörtext zum Gummitwist. Grundschulmagazin Englisch 5/ 2011, 23 - 26. Wagenschein, M. (1977), Rettet die Phänomene! Der mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht 30/ 3, 129 - 137. Walker, D. (2009), Geometry: Solid Figures. Take off! 2/ 2009, 36 - 45. References 161 Wesche, M. B. (2002), Early French Immersion: How Has the Original Canadian Model Stood the Test of Time? In: Burmeister, P., Piske, T. & Rohde, A. (eds.), An Integrated View of Language Development. Papers in Honor of Henning Wode. Trier: WVT, 357 - 379. Wiggermann, D. (2011), Let ’ s go outside. Spiele im Freien. Grundschulmagazin Englisch 5/ 2011, 17 - 19. Wildhage, M. & Otten, E. (Hrsg.) (2003), Praxis des bilingualen Unterrichts. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Williams-Hahn, S. (2009), Size and Measurement. Take off! 2/ 2009, 16 - 25. Winter, F. (1999), Eine neue Lernkultur braucht neue Formen der Leistungsbewertung! In: Böttcher, W., Brosch, U. & Schneider-Petri, H., Leistungsbewertung in der Grundschule. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz, 68 - 79. Wode, H. (1995), Lernen in der Fremdsprache: Grundzüge von Immersion und bilingualem Unterricht. Ismaning: Hueber. Wode, H. (2009), Praxis Frühkindliche Bildung: Frühes Fremdsprachenlernen in bilingualen Kindergärten und Grundschulen. Braunschweig: Westermann. Wode, H., Burmeister, P., Daniel, A. & Rohde, A. (1999), Verbundmöglichkeiten von Kindergarten, Grundschule und Sekundarstufe I im Hinblick auf den Einsatz von bilingualem Unterricht. Zeitschrift für interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 2, 1 - 17. [Online unter http: / / zif.spz.tu-darmstadt.de/ jg-04 - 2/ beitrag/ wode2.htm, last accessed 25. 11. 2011]. Wolff, D. (2007), Bridging the Gap between School and Working Life. In: Marsh, D. & Wolff, D. (eds.), Diverse Contexts - Converging Goals. CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 15 - 26. Wolff, D. (2008), Möglichkeiten zur Entwicklung von Mehrsprachigkeit in Europa. In: Bach, G. & Niemeier, S. (Hrsg.), Bilingualer Unterricht. Grundlagen, Methoden, Praxis, Perspektiven. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang, 151 - 164. Wolff, D. (2012), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Anglistik. International Journal of English Studies 23/ 1, 97 - 106. Wright, A. (2009), Storytelling with Children (2 nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wu, Y. J. & Thierry, G. (2012), Unconscious Translation During Incidental Foreign Language Processing. NeuroImage 59, 3486 - 3473. Zaunbauer, A. C. M. & Möller, J. (2006), Schriftsprachliche und mathematische Leistungen in der Erstsprache: Ein Vergleich monolingual und teilimmersiv unterrichteter Kinder der zweiten und dritten Klassenstufe. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 17(2), 181 - 200. Zaunbauer, A. C. M. & Möller, J. (2007), Schulleistungen monolingual und immersiv unterrichteter Kinder am Ende des 1. Schuljahres. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie 39, 141 - 153. Zaunbauer, A. C. M. & Möller, J. (2010), Schulleistungsentwicklung immersiv unterrichteter Grundschüler in den ersten zwei Schuljahren. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 57, 30 - 45. Zaunbauer, A.C M., Bonerad, E.-M. & Möller, J. (2005), Muttersprachliches Leseverständnis immersiv unterrichteter Kinder. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 19/ 3, 233 - 235. Zydatiß, W. (2000), Bilingualer Unterricht in der Grundschule. Entwurf eines Spracherwerbskonzepts für zweisprachige Immersionsprogramme. Ismaning: Max Hueber Verlag. Zydatiß, W. (2007), Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL). Eine Evaluation des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts an Gymnasien. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang. Zydatiß, W. (2012), Linguistic Thresholds in the CLIL Classroom? The Threshold Hypothesis Revisited. International CLIL Research Journal 1 (4), 16 - 29. 162 References Index A abilities 96 abstraction 70 action-based 46 action-oriented 99 affective filter 47 application 49 assessment 74 et seqq. at-risk students 38 et seq. authentic communication 46 authenticity 77 autonomous 100 B Basic Interpersonal Communication Skill (BICS) 22 bilingual 16 bilingual classes 23 bilingual education 16 bilingual modules 20 Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht 19 bilingualism 18 bilinguals 9 Broca ’ s area 13 C can-do statements 91 circuits 64 clarifying 75 classroom language 65 classroom management 64 CLIL assessment 73, 78 CLIL programmes 21 CLILA 78 code-mixing 10 code-switching 10, 47, 66 Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) 22 cognitive development 10, 14 cognitive learning 47 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) 29 competence 82 comprehension 47 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) 19 et seq. content-based 46 creative thinking 11 cross-curricular 69 cross-language interaction 11 D diagnose 100 difficulty (assessment) 79 divergent thinking 11 E early bilinguals 13 eco-system model 96 Eurydice Country Report 21 evaluation 49 evaluation criteria 90 EVENING 99 executive control 12 experimental phases 45 experiments 45 F factors crucial for success in L2 learning 30 et seq. feedback 74 flexibility score 11 fluency score 11 formative assessment 75 et seq. form-focused 99 frequently asked questions 32 G gesturing 46 grammar school 94 H higher order thinking 49 holistic approach 46 hypotheses 45 I immersion 17 information-transfer 43 Inhibitory Control model 12 input 46 Inquiry-Based Science Education 44 intelligence 11 (inter-)cultural dimension 49 (inter-)cultural knowledge 63 interdependence hypothesis 54 internal tests 76 L L1 development 28 et seq., 36 et seq., 39 L2 development 28 et seq., 32 et seqq., 39 language as subject lessons 28, 30 et seq. language development 9 language game 55 language input 9 language-course-oriented 93 large-scale immersion studies 52 learner language 28, 33 et seqq. learner performance 90 et seq. learning by doing 65 learning environment 9, 99 learning strategies 47 level of support 80 lingualevel instrument 81 linguistic competence 20 linguistic learning 47 literacy instruction 28, 35 M manipulatives 45 mathematical competences 53, 56 mathematical literacy 52, 56 meaningful interaction 23 measures of transition 107 mental lexicon 10 MeNuK 44 metalinguistic advantages 12 metalinguistic awareness 11 modelling 43 monolinguals 9 multi-sensory activities 46 N national curricula 96 native language 14 negotiate 46 neurolinguistic evidence 13 number wheel 80 numeracy 52, 56 O open-ended formats 91 outcome sentences 81 P partial immersion programmes 31 performance 38 performances 91 picture narrations 32 et seqq. positive impact 78 practicality 77 primary school level 100 Pri-Sec-Co 99 process-oriented 46 PROCLIL 21, 78 Product/ type of response 80 proficiency 20 proficiency threshold 11 programme 93 pushed output 49 R range (assessment) 79 Rapid Profile 100 reading 28, 31 et seq., 35 et seqq. recasting 47 reinforce 47 reliability 77 report 45 research evidence 32 et seqq. reviewing 75 rich input 48 rich interaction 49 ritualisation 53 S Sachunterricht 44 scaffold 46 scaffolding 49, 59, 66 school readiness paradigm 96 science 44 science lessons 45 self-assessment 80 skills model 96 starting age 30 storytelling approach 53 subject matters 20 subjects 37 subject(-specific)knowledge 23, 28 et seq., 37 et seqq. summarising 75 summative assessment 76 sustainable learning 49 T task-based teaching 45 test-item formats 89 threshold theory 11 thumbs up/ thumbs down 80 time (assessment) 79 Total Physical Response 62 transactional approach 46 transition 93 et seq. translanguaging 14 V validity 77 variety 77 W washback 78 writing 28, 31 et seq., 35 et seqq. 164 Index Authors Natasha Aristov received her Ph. D. in physical chemistry at the University of California at Berkeley and post doc ’ ed at the Max Plank Institut für Strömungsforschung in Göttingen. After a stint at the Institute for Chemical Education at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, she returned to Germany in 1995 where she has been teaching physical science at all grade levels, culminating in teacher training in chemistry and elementary school science at the University of Education in Ludwigsburg. Henriette Dausend is research assistant at Goethe University Frankfurt/ Main and currently finishing her PhD thesis on “ Trans-curricula teaching - Fostering discourse literacies in the primary classroom with the use of learners ’ L1+L2+Lx ” . Her other major research interests are in cultural and sociological questions concerning the impact of subcultures (e. g. Street Art, brands, advertisement, music) on foreign language learning. Daniela Elsner is Professor for English Language Education and Research at the Institute of English and American Studies at Goethe-University Frankfurt/ Main. Her special fields of interest are, next to CLIL and immersion, foreign language teaching and learning in elementary school, multi-literacies and language awareness, multilingualism, and foreign language teacher education development. As a former primary and secondary school teacher and co-author of several EFL-texbooks, she is interested and experienced in foreign language teaching methods at all levels. Helga Haudeck studied English and Geography at the University of Education in Ludwigsburg and Liverpool Polytechnic. After teaching assignments in Stuttgart and Schwieberdingen she joined the staff at the University of Education in Ludwigsburg in 1994. She holds a Master of Arts degree (M. A.) and a Diploma of Education (Dipl.-Päd.) from the PH Ludwigsburg and a Ph. D. in English Didactics from the TU Dortmund. Her areas of research include the teaching of English to young learners, CLIL, and language learning strategies. Her special interests are the preand in-service training of English teachers. Katja Heim is a lecturer in English as a Foreign Language Methodology at the University of Duisburg-Essen. She has taught languages in England and Germany, did her PhD research in the field of teaching English at primary level and has published numerous articles on how to create an empowering learning environment. She has also co-designed educational software for young learners of English. Apart from CLIL in the primary school, her research interests lie in the fields of CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning), learner autonomy and models of teacher education. Jörg-U. Keßler is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Dean of Faculty II at Ludwigsburg University of Education. His research interests include instructed SLA, immersion and CLIL programmes, and TBLT. Another field of interest is TEFL pedagogy in primary schools. He has been a member of the board of experts of the EVENING research group. As a former teacher he taught Geography bilingually and coordinated bilingual programmes in different parts of NRW. Kristin Kersten is Juniorprofessor of Foreign Language Teaching and Second Language Acquisition at the University of Hildesheim. In her research, she focuses on principles and mechanisms of language learning and teaching with a special emphasis on bilingual education (CLIL / immersion programs) and young learners. As the coordinator of a multilateral COMENIUS project, she has recently co-authored an international study on second language acquisition, intercultural competence and bilingual environmental education ("Green Immersion") in bilingual preschools. Ute Massler is Professor of TEFL at the University of Education Weingarten. Her special fields of interest are, next to CLIL and immersion, foreign language teaching and learning in elementary school, web-based ELT, new literacies and transcultural foreign language learning. Thorsten Piske is Professor and Chair of Second Language Learning and Teaching at the Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. He has done research on the production and perception of first and second language speech sounds and on the effectiveness of bilingual programs in kindergartens and schools. He is also known for joint work with James E. Flege on factors affecting degree of foreign accent in a second language. Greg Poarch studied Sports Science and English Linguistics at the TU Darmstadt and received his PhD in psycholinguistics from Radboud University Nijmegen. He is English Lecturer at the Institute of English and American Studies at Goethe University Frankfurt, and teaches courses on psycholinguistics, SLA, and bilingualism, as well as practical TESOL language courses. His research interests include executive functions, language production and comprehension, and crosslinguistic interaction in multilingual children, particularly in immersion contexts, which he will soon be further exploring as a postdoctoral fellow in the Cognitive Development Lab at York University, Toronto. Andreas Rohde is Professor for English linguistics and second language teaching at the institute of English II at Cologne University. His research interests include (bilingual) first and second language acquisition (especially lexical issues) as well as TEFL pedagogy in primary schools, bilingual kindergarten/ preschool and 166 Authors school programmes, and, more recently, specific language impairment and SLIrelated teaching issues. Daniel Stotz is a senior lecturer in English language teaching methodology and linguistics at Zurich University of Teacher Education. His interests in research and development include task-based language learning, CLIL, multilingualism and language policy in education. His PhD study (University of Berne) was a discourse-analytic investigation of group-work and whole-class settings. He is the co-author of three EFL textbooks and also enjoys writing fiction. Britta Viebrock is Professor of TEFL at the Institute of English and American Studies at Goethe-University Frankfurt/ Main. She studied English, Geography and Mathematics at the Universities of Braunschweig and Bremen and obtained her PhD in 2006 with a study on CLIL teachers ’ mindsets. Apart from CLIL, her areas of research include web-based ELT and new literacies, qualitative research methodology, transcultural foreign language learning and research ethics. Authors 167 Bilingual education has become a major trend throughout multilingual Europe both at primary and secondary school level. This book offers a concise and reader-friendly introduction to bilingual teaching and learning at primary school level. It provides a state of the art overview of current approaches, issues, research results, and teaching practices of bilingual education at primary schools. The book is written by renowned experts in the field of bilingual education and addresses university students, teacher trainees as well as in-service-teachers. It can be used for self study purposes as well as for university seminars. The authors focus on goals, chances and challenges of the integration of bilingual teaching and learning programmes such as CLIL, Immersion, or Bilingual Modules as well as valid and practice-oriented assessment of bilingual classrooms and learners. Each chapter includes a short introduction, preand post-reading activities, suggestions for review, reflection, and research on each of the topics and is accompanied by further reading suggestions. The book is completed by a glossary, a bilingual sample module, a detailed bibliography, and a subject index.