Читать книгу English in Elementary Schools - Anja Steinlen - Страница 23

As mentioned above, bilingual programs (in Germany and elsewhere) differ according to their intensity, i.e., the quantity of FL input. Kersten (2019) provided an overview of content-based approaches in FL teaching, ranging from low to high intensity:

Figure 1:

Continuum of FL intensity in content-based approaches (adopted from Kersten 2019: 40).

In Kersten’s (2019) view, content can – and also should – be part of any regular FL teaching, although in such programs the focus is not on content, but on the FL. To reiterate, bilingual programs (particularly in Europe) are conceived under the generic term “CLIL”, which encompasses all forms of teaching one or several subjects in a FL (e.g., Coyle et al., 2010; Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols, 2008; KMK, 2013). Less-intensive bilingual programs include individual bilingual modules or projects, where, for example, the topic “water” is taught in the FL over a limited period of time, usually lasting only a few days or weeks. “Bilingualer Sachfachuntericht” (or CLIL proper), which in Germany is most widely taught from secondary level 1 onwards, usually offers one to two subjects in the foreign language (for example history, geography), often lasting for one year or several years. The most intensive forms of bilingual teaching are immersion (IM) programs. In partial IM programs, at least 50% of the curriculum is taught in the FL (this also applies to two-way or dual IM programs1). In full (or total) IM programs, teaching takes place 100% in the FL and over a longer period, i.e., for many years. In Canada, total IM programs are often provided for young English learners in French IM programs, which turn into partial IM programs in later years in order to provide additional teaching in the students’ L1 English (e.g., Genesee, 1987)2. As a result, IM programs are the most intensive forms of bilingual education in the continuum of programs varying in FL intensity (e.g., Burmeister & Massler, 2010; Kersten, 2019; Mehisto et al., 2008, as illustrated in Figure 1) and have been found to be particularly effective in terms of FL competence, without neglecting subject competence (e.g., Genesee 1987, 2004; Pérez-Cañado, 2012; Wode 1995, 2009; Wesche, 2002, and also see below). In Germany, however, total IM programs (where the target language is used exclusively in all lessons and subjects in school) are not possible because, according to the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK, 2013b), the subject German must be taught in German. That means that in elementary schools in Germany, only a maximum of 70-80% of the teaching time can be conducted in the new language, corresponding to partial IM programs (for a further review, see Piske, 2015).

In her review of IM programs, Wesche (2002) posited the question as to how much FL exposure would be needed to ensure adequate language development for learners in order to be able to maintain grade level learning in their other academic studies. She showed that in 50/50 IM programs with an early start (i.e., in grade 1 or kindergarten), a second language can be effectively taught, but that gains vis-a-vis early ‘total’ IM are lower, or roughly commensurate with the relative total time spent in the FL (Wesche, 2002). However, due to the restrictions outlined above, any comparisons involving total IM programs are not possible in Germany. As Wesche (2002) also pointed out, late-starting, low-intensity bilingual programs (i.e., 20/80 programs3 starting in grade 7) may be quite successful in enhancing the FL proficiency of academically-inclined (Gymnasium) students (for Germany see e.g., Burmeister & Daniel, 2002; Köller, Leucht & Pant, 2012; Nold, Hartig, Hinz & Rossa, 2008; Rumlich, 2016; Wode, 1995, 2009). Such programs may also be successful at the lower secondary school level, as shown in studies on Realschule (Rischawy, 2016) and Hauptschule (Schwab, 2013) in Germany. Thus, bilingual programs can be implemented at every school level without compromising age-appropriate subject knowledge. Evidence for 20/80 programs with an early start is, unfortunately, scarce (see also Piske, 2020). Here, the FL is generally offered in only one subject, often science for the elementary school context. The findings of pilot studies indicate improvement in FL learning from grade 1 to 4, although the scores of the language tests did not always differ in a statistically significant way from year to year (e.g., Couve de Murville, Kersten, Maier, Ponto & Weitz, 2016; Steinlen & Gerdes, 2015). Unfortunately, academic achievement was not taken into consideration in these studies.

In the following, “bilingual schools”, “bilingual programs” or “CLIL programs” are used as umbrella terms, which subsume bilingual programs with lower or higher intensity. The term “IM” (immersion) is ascribed to partial immersion programs where the FL is used more than 50% of the teaching time. Abbreviations such as Bili-20, Bili-50 or Bili-70 are used to illustrate the intensity of any bilingual program, in which 20%, 50% and 70%, respectively, are offered in the target language, with Bili-50 and Bili-70 programs corresponding to partial IM programs.