English in Elementary Schools - Anja Steinlen Multilingualism and Language Teaching

Скачать книгу

additional support for autonomous learning and more diverse opportunities to become aware of the structures of the English language, in particular with respect to FL phoneme-grapheme correspondences and the segmentation of the speech stream (BIG-Kreis, 2015, see also chapter 7). Unfortunately, the Ministries of Education of the sixteen Federal States of Germany have not yet been able to agree on a common procedure (e.g., Börner et al., 2017; Burwitz-Melzer, 2010; Hempel et al., 2018).

      2.3 Bilingual programs in Germany

      Bilingual programs represent a more intensive way to acquire a new language within the school context. According to Wolff & Sudhoff (2015: 9), bilingual teaching can generally be defined as a methodological concept in which learning school content is carried out in a language that does not correspond to the school language (usually the majority language). Of the 15,409 elementary schools in Germany, more than 2% are currently offering a bilingual program, corresponding to more than 330 elementary schools. In these schools at least one content subject (e.g., science, music, physical education, math) is taught in the new language. The target language in German elementary schools is usually English or French (FMKS, 2014).

      The general aim of bilingual programs is to foster both FL learning and content learning (e.g., Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010). The Eurydice report (2006: 22) points to four additional objectives. Following Elsner & Keßler (2013), these include socio-economic objectives (to prepare students for life in a more internationalized society and to offer them better job prospects on the labor market); socio-cultural objectives (to teach students values of tolerance and respect vis-a-vis other cultures through the use of the target language); linguistic objectives (to enable students to develop language skills which emphasize effective communication and to motivate them to learn languages by using them for real practical purposes); and finally educational objectives (i.e., subject-related knowledge and learning ability, to stimulate the assimilation of subject matter by means of a different and innovative approach).

      Next, chapters 2.3.1-2.3.4 describe general characteristics of bilingual programs, and chapters 2.3.5-2.3.8 summarize curricular baselines for bilingual education, teacher education, supply of materials and various aspects of assessment in bilingual programs in Germany. Finally, the results of empirical studies on reading and writing skills in bilingual programs in Germany are provided in chapters 2.3.9-2.3.12.

      2.3.1 Differences between bilingual programs and EFL programs

      The main differences between bilingual programs and regular FL lessons was outlined by Burmeister (2006), who compared regular FL teaching with intensive bilingual (immersion, IM) teaching in the elementary school context. In bilingual lessons, subject matter is taught using a foreign language. In regular FL lessons, the reverse is true: here, foreign language skills are taught with the help of subject matter. One could argue that the teaching materials for regular English lessons in elementary education also provide a variety of topics, e.g., units on animals, on the human body, or topics relating to cultural studies. The crucial difference between bilingual and regular FL programs, however, ​​is based on the objective and thus on the respective function of language and subject matter as the subject of learning.

      Burmeister (2006) provided the following example: in regular FL teaching, the topic “animals” may have been chosen because it reflects the interests of elementary school children and is therefore motivating. Additionally, the topic may already constitute the following unit in the textbook and/or perhaps it may just fit the topic taught in science (which is conducted in the majority language, in this case: German). However, the main reason for choosing this topic is that it provides linguistic input to train listening, speaking, reading or possibly writing skills in the FL. The topic thus acts as a vehicle for deliberately exercising and circulating selected linguistic structures and vocabulary. In contrast, the topic of “animals” would be chosen in the bilingual classroom because it is included as a topic in the curriculum for the subject “science” for grade 1. This topic, therefore, is genuinely based on the curriculum of a non-language subject, and the learners’ involvement with its content in the FL is authentic. The L2 acts as a vehicle to transport content; and the selection of linguistic means arises directly from the respective topic (Burmeister, 2006).

      In addition, dealing with topics in the non-language subject area goes beyond what is usually provided in regular FL teaching in terms of complexity and methodology. To illustrate the linguistic and cognitive challenges that the FL learners in the IM classroom face, Burmeister (2006) points to the curricular requirements for the subject “science” (which is taught in German in mainstream classes) for elementary schools in Schleswig-Holstein: the lessons in the subject “science” are aimed at developing “real life knowledge” and the initiation of “functional classification systems”, and the children at the end of grade 4 should be able “to draw conclusions”, “to think comprehensively”, “to jointly plan, execute and evaluate”, “to conduct research independently”, “to develop time concepts” and “to recognize and evaluate”, to mention just a few key competences (e.g., Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kultur des Landes Schleswig-Holstein, 1997: 93). In the IM classroom, the children learn and apply these complex skills in the FL (and not in the majority language with which most of the children are more acquainted). Thus, bilingual teaching is not just about vocabulary learning but about conceptual learning, and combines learning concepts and their linguistic expressions (e.g., Bonnet, Breidbach & Hallet, 2003).

      In sum, in language-driven (i.e., regular EFL) programs, content is used to learn the FL, i.e., FL learning is the priority, content learning is incidental, the language objectives are determined by the FL curriculum (i.e., English-as-a-subject), and students are evaluated on language skills/proficiency. In content-driven (bilingual) programs, the focus is on content being taught in the FL, i.e., content learning has priority, FL learning is secondary. Content objectives are determined by the curriculum of the specific subject (e.g., science), the teachers must select language objectives, and students are evaluated on content mastery (see Met, 1999: no page).

      2.3.2 Different bilingual programs: CLIL vs. IM

      Throughout Europe, the umbrella term Content and Language Integrated Learning or CLIL is used to refer to the educational option of teaching non-language subjects through a second language (L2). More specifically, this term pertains to “all types of provision in which a second language (a foreign, regional or minority language and/or another official state language) is used to teach certain subjects in the curriculum other than the language lessons themselves” (Eurydice, 2006: 8). In the Anglo-American context, however, the term “immersion” (IM) is being used. Both concepts, CLIL and IM, have in common that subject teaching takes place in a language that does not correspond to the students’ ambient language (i.e., English instead of German in Germany).

      The following core features are also shared by CLIL and IM programs (e.g., Nikula & Mård-Miettinen, 2014). First, both share the conviction that foreign/second language competence should not be regarded as a separate skill but one intertwined with students’ cognitive, conceptual and social development, best supported by engaging students in meaningful and cognitively and academically challenging language use. Second, CLIL and IM subjects are timetabled as content and not as language lessons, which also means that teachers are typically content rather than language teachers. Third, CLIL and IM subjects com­plement foreign language instruction rather than serving as its replacement.

      However, Nikula & Mård-Miettinen (2014: 2) point out that that demarcating CLIL and IM may simply result in “dead ends” because CLIL and IM as terms have fuzzy boundaries, both when used in academic discourse and as everyday concepts. Nevertheless, IM and CLIL show many differences (see Nikula & Mård-Miettinen, 2014 for a detailed description). First, IM and CLIL differ according to the geographical and sociopolitical context and their dates of origin (starting in Canada in the 1960s and in Europe in the 1990s, respectively). Second, the new language often is a national language in immersion programs (e.g., French in Canada) but a transnational lingua franca in CLIL programs in Europe (e.g., English in Germany). For this reason, CLIL teachers are more com­monly non-native speakers of the instructional language than immersion

Скачать книгу