Teach it in English! Implementing English in the Political Classroom
©2013
Textbook
45 Pages
Summary
Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has recently gained great popularity in German schools. Reports of teachers and pupils indicate that in bilingual lessons foreign language learning is perceived to be less artificial and far more motivating than in traditional language teaching. In contrast to conventional language learning CLIL emphasises subject specific contents. Although many teachers are not sure in which way English as predominant medium of instruction should be taught, most of the rather experimental attempts to do so are reported to be successful. Nevertheless, in some German states there neither is a curriculum, nor are there any recommendations specifically developed on the needs of different subjects taught in the integrated way. CLIL requires teachers to be strongly committed and to invest extra time and work to turn this relatively new concept into a success. But what is their motivation for establishing such learning environments? To find out about some of the reasons why CLIL is currently so successful in German schools, I examine the example of political education in Saxony and the extra benefits of CLIL when being taught in English.
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
2
concept of bilingualism and then outline the rationale of content and language integrated
learning by giving an overview of current approaches towards CLIL. Afterwards I will
consider general principles and aims of political education and foreign language teaching. By
analysing and comparing the Saxon curricula of the subjects English and politics I will try to
find the benefits and challenges emerging from teaching politics in English.
2 The concept of bilingualism
2.1 The linguistic concept
Within academic discourse there is a great variety of attempts to define the term bilingualism.
The definitions and descriptions try to explain the phenomenon in terms of different
categories, scales and dichotomies (cf. ROMAINE, 11).
In the 1930s BLOOMFIELD considers a speaker only as bilingual if he or she gains native-
like proficiency in two languages. Accordingly, the number of bilingual speakers would be
strictly limited. This definition is problematic as for finding out who actually is a bilingual
speaker, native-like fluencies need to be operationalised in order to measure the speaker's
proficiency. However, BLOOMFIELD does not explain in what way this could be done (cf.
BUTLER / HAKUTA, 114).
Another extreme approach to bilingualism is HAUGEN's understanding of the concept. In the
1950s he assumed that a bilingual speaker is an individual fluent in one language, a person
who is additionally able to "produce meaningful utterances in the other language"
(HAUGEN, 7.). This implies that even early second language learners can be considered as
bilingual speakers. His broad view of a minimal definition is shared by many researchers of
the field. HAKUTA, MACNAMARA and MOHANTY are among those who take
HAUGEN's definition as basis for further addition of various degrees of proficiency in order
to make the approach more precise (cf. BUTLER / HAKUTA, 114).
Another minimal definition is offered by DIEBOLD who introduces the term `incipient
bilingualism' (qtd. in ROMAINE, 11). In his description of the initial stages of contact
between two languages, he refers to a passive or receptive kind of bilingualism. According to
DIEBOLD, bilingualism begins with the ability to understand utterances although the speaker
is still incapable of actively producing meaningful language (cf. ibid.).
By the 1990s bilingual researches shifted focus from acquisition of formal rules to
communicative skills. Bilinguals were now considered as individuals or groups of people who
3
acquire communicative skills aiming at interaction with speakers of another language. The
linguistic competences of bilinguals may vary in degrees of proficiency and be applied to oral
and / or written forms of language (cf. BUTLER / HAKUTA, 115). The concept of
bilingualism is understood as complex psychological and social state of the individual and at
the same time seen as result of interaction through two or possibly more languages (cf. ibid.).
The complexity of bilingualism can easily be illustrated by the variety of dimensions applied
to the concept, such as balance (similar degrees of proficiency in first and second language)
and dominance (higher proficiency in one language) or early and late bilingualism (referring
to the age of acquiring two or more languages) (cf. ibid., 118). These continuous dimensions
can be considered for different aspects of language, as for instance reading, writing or basic
interpersonal communicative skills. Besides, proficiencies may change over time.
Consequently, bilingualism is of dynamic character (cf. ibid.).
It seems that these different attempts to define bilingualism share that the phenomenon
implies knowledge, the use of more than one language and that it is a complex psychological
and socio-cultural behaviour. Yet, it is arbitrary to determine when exactly a language
becomes the second language. It should rather be referred to as the alternate use of two or
more languages closely linked to questions of proficiency, function, alternation and
interference of the languages (cf. ROMAINE, 12).
2.2 CLIL in German schools
Before I will continue with the development of content and language integrated learning in
German classrooms, it is important to clarify the further use of the term bilingual. In the
following paragraphs I will apply the terms bilingual and bilingual instruction with reference
to CLIL. I will neither refer to concepts of integration of immigrants into monolingual
societies as applied in the USA, nor will I refer to concepts of total immersion aiming at
integration into bilingual social contexts as applied in Canada (cf. BACH, 14).
4
2.2.1 Development of bilingual instruction in Germany
Bilingual instruction in German classrooms roots back to the 1960s. With the establishment
of the Franco-German Cooperation in 1963, the concept called "Begegnungssprache" (ibid.,
9) emerged. It implied the use of foreign languages as early as in kindergartens and primary
schools. The first bilingual trace with French as language of instruction was established in
1969. In the following years an increasing number of schools, especially grammar schools
offered bilingual education with French but also English as language of instruction (cf. KMK,
7).
From 1980 1995 researchers in the field of foreign language teaching were trying to find
ways of improving and optimising foreign language learning. Apart from formal aspects,
activities in the classroom should now also concentrate on communicative language use
within authentic contexts. One way of implementing these ideas was to declare the foreign
language as medium of communication in other subjects as within this context the use of the
foreign language is rather of a functional nature than of a formal one. By introducing
bilingual modules, pupils were slowly familiarised with the idea of content and language
integrated learning (cf. KMK, 8).
With the introduction of the European Single Market and increasing economic and cultural
globalisation, English became the most important language for bilingual instruction (cf.
BONNET / BREIDBACH / HALLET, 172). Linguistic and intercultural education now
seems to be as important as it had never been before. As a consequence, projects of bilingual
education emerge in more and more primary and secondary schools, no matter whether
comprehensive, middle or grammar schools. While in 1999 there were 366 schools with
bilingual education on offer, there were 847 such schools in 2006 (cf. KMK, 9). Different
forms of organisation illustrate the variety of bilingual instruction offered in Germany. Apart
from bilingual traces and cross-curricular CLIL modules, there are also a few schools that
apply bilingualism as central tenet of their whole school organisation (cf. BOSENIUS
Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht, 127). Since many schools are not able to offer long-term
bilingual traces, they offer short-phase bilingual modules. In case of bilingual traces, students
usually take part in enhanced foreign language teaching in grades five and six for preparation
for the introduction of one or two bilingual subjects from grade seven to ten. In grades eleven,
twelve and thirteen usually one subject is continued to be taught in the foreign language (cf.
BONNET / BREIDBACH / HALLET, 172).
5
As some federal states published curricula and recommendations for bilingual education and
an increasing number of universities offer special courses for future bilingual teachers the
consolidation of CLIL is in progress (cf. OTTEN / WILDHAGE, 16).
2.2.2 Legitimisation of CLIL
Within the discourse of science and didactics the growing demand for CLIL is first and
foremost seen as consequence of the latest international developments. Apart from processes
of globalisation in science and industry, the introduction of the European Single Market led to
growing social mobility between the countries. In order to be well-prepared for future
challenges in their professional life, pupils need to be able to communicate in a foreign
language. Foreign language competence, mobility, ability to teamwork and open-mindedness
are considered the basic requirements for working and participating in the European culture
(cf. Bach, 10). For this reason, there is an increasing demand for more language contact and
more opportunities to use English as a means of communication (cf. NIEMEIER, 32).
Since multiliteracy is considered high value qualification within the united Europe, pupils
should be enabled to study in a foreign language, develop cultural awareness and acquire
strategies for getting into contact with other cultures (cf. ibid., 33). With the objectives of
promoting people's proficiency in more than one language and by this providing them with
new opportunities for employment, CLIL needs to be understood as an integral part of
European language policy (cf. BOSENIUS Content and Language Integrated Learning, 15).
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages was therefore introduced as
instrument for supporting the development of intercultural communicative competence by
standardising language teaching methods and forms of assessment (cf. CEF). Its concept of
multiliteracy includes linguistic and more general competences, such as the acquisition of
knowledge, strategic competences for language learning, communicative competence and
media literacy (cf. ibid, 16). Content and language integrated learning seems to offer good
opportunities for achieving these aims. As lessons are mainly structured by subject matters,
they provide a clear context for task- and content-oriented work that includes structured
access to information and communication technology (especially the World Wide Web).
Additionally, subject specific methods often rely on the ability to work with different kinds of
texts, and various learning and working strategies are addressed and conveyed in the medium
of the foreign language (cf. ibid., 18).
6
2.2.3 Objections to CLIL
Although CLIL seemingly offers great opportunities for fostering intercultural communicative
competence and preparing pupils for their future in a globalised world, many teachers are not
yet convinced of the concept. One of the reasons for their rejection roots in the organisational
form of German schools. A variety of subjects determines the daily routines. This results in
very limited time resources for conveying numerous contents and skills given in the curricula.
Different subjects seem to be competing for precious time in order to achieve as many
objectives as possible (cf. BREIDBACH Bilinguale Didaktik, 165). In the following
paragraph I would like to discuss the most commonly mentioned objections and give some
suggestions of how to cope with the anticipated problems.
Many teachers are afraid that pupils with minor language competences will be excluded from
classroom discussions as they will not be able to actively participate in the foreign language.
In most CLIL classrooms the foreign language is the medium of instruction. However, it is
not necessary to ban the pupils' mother tongue completely from the classroom. It is not only
for the reason that contents and concepts need to be acquired in both, first and second
language, but also the objective of intercultural learning that justifies a well-reasoned
temporary use of the mother tongue (cf. HÜBNER / GRAMMES / STORK, 240). I will
discuss the role of the first language in CLIL later on.
Another common reason for scepticism is the assumption that subject specific contents are
being neglected in the course of using a foreign language as medium of classroom interaction.
In order to ensure that contents are well-understood, language-caused misunderstandings have
to be prevented. Therefore, it would be necessary to focus on language aspects which thus
would result in inferior quality of content learning (cf. ibid., 241). Although language is an
important factor of CLIL, it has to be focused on in a functional way. If language mistakes do
not result in misunderstandings or in disrupting the discussion, they do not need to be
corrected. Emphasis should be laid on contents and language support should be offered when
absolutely necessary.
Apart from these worries, some teachers even expect CLIL to have effects that strongly
contradict its basic objectives. As pupils' proficiency in the foreign language is not as high as
in their mother tongue, teachers are afraid that contents and problems of the subject can only
be considered in a much reduced manner and thus might support and strengthen stereotypes
(cf. ibid., 243). Different analyses of CLIL lessons could not prove this assumption. On the
7
contrary, the analysis of sources in a foreign language requires careful reading and the
consideration of first and foreign language concepts which fosters the acquisition of subject
specific knowledge and competences (cf. ibid., 244).
The last problem I would like to mention is the idea that a foreign language as medium for
classroom interaction might result in a lack of technical terms in the pupils' first language.
Since the introduced concepts should be discussed from different cultural perspectives, it is
useful to use the German terms when discussing specifically German associations with the
term. Technical terms should be introduced in the first as well as in the foreign language.
2.2.4 The rationale of CLIL
Bilingual education is Germany is mostly offered in traces, i.e. a number of subjects (most
commonly history, geography and politics) are taught in a foreign language as medium of
classroom interaction. With this development a third type of language teaching emerges: it is
neither a grammar-oriented, nor an exclusively content-oriented approach. The aim is to
integrate both approaches with focus on conveying subject specific contents and competences
via the target language. This implies a functional focus on form or negotiation of form to
support the learners in precise understanding and language production in the context of the
subject (cf. VOLLMER Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht als Inhalts- und Sprachlernen, 49).
The development of language proficiency is understood as long and dynamic process
including the development of discourse competence and subject literacy (cf. ibid., 56). CLIL
is primarily focused on content-oriented learning. Nevertheless, the language learning process
does not only include the acquisition of linguistic knowledge for mere functional and
appropriate application. It also includes the development of language awareness and language
learning awareness, since in the production of utterances the learner is increasingly
expressing complex ideas and concepts. Only if the learner recognises the relation of form
and function within the language, he or she will be able to develop discourse competence and
different subject specific methods of thought (cf. ibid., 57). The challenge of bilingual
instruction is to get pupils acquiring subject specific knowledge in connection with language
functions of the foreign language (cf. ibid., 63).
8
a) The integration of content and language learning
As the improvement of both, language and subject specific competences, is the goal of CLIL,
it has to be discussed in what ways language and content learning should be integrated.
OTTEN and WILDHAGE offer one approach towards this question. They provide teachers
with an instructional framework for CLIL based on the following theses: First of all they
claim that an integration of content and language learning in bilingual classrooms implies the
use of the foreign language as language of instruction. The didactical foundations of the
lesson are provided by the scientific subject, not the language. Foreign language teaching
methods and concepts should support subject specific learning processes (cf. OTTEN /
WILDHAGE, 24). The special value of bilingual instruction enfolds itself in the opportunity
of intercultural learning by applying the foreign language. Furthermore, they state, that
lexico-grammatical work has to be determined by subject specific learning processes and
discourse. The further development of linguistic competence is not to be considered as mere
work on vocabulary but as process of discursive character (cf. ibid., 27). Therefore, the
integration of language and content for optimising subject specific teaching and learning
processes implies a systematic and well-guided support of the pupil's language acquisition in
complex learning situations. This includes basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS),
which should be primarily focused on in traditional foreign language classes, as well as
cognitive academic linguistic proficiency (CALP) that is especially focused on in CLIL (cf.
ibid., 28). According to WILDHAGE and OTTEN in CLIL teachers need to apply the
principle of functional multilingualism. By working with bilingual materials pupils have the
opportunity to gain insights into different cultural perspectives which should be supported by
contrastive and comparing methods that foster the subject specific creation of meaning and
concepts. Whether pupils use the foreign language or their mother tongue for communication
depends on the specific contents and methods applied and on cognitive and communicative
requirements of the respective task (cf. ibid., 31). In order to integrate language and content
learning, WILDHAGE and OTTEN call for better interdisciplinary coordination, especially in
terms of better cooperation between foreign language teaching and the CLIL subjects. In this
context they refer to the approach called `Language(s) Across the Curriculum' aiming at a
cooperation between bilingual subjects, foreign language teaching and first language
instruction. Only then language competences can optimally be transferred and thereby support
the authentic use of the foreign language in bilingual classrooms (cf. ibid., 33). Cross-
9
curricular cooperation also includes interdisciplinary methods and cooperation in terms of
contents and cross-curricular work (cf. ibid., 32).
Based on these assumptions, WILDHAGE and OTTEN developed a heuristic model of CLIL
which includes the explicit practice of foreign language learning in complex subject specific
contexts and implicit support of language learning.
Figure 1: Integration of language and subject specific learning. Translated by Janine Franke.
(cf. WILDHAGE / OTTEN, 35.)
The model also illustrates that intercultural learning should be systematically supported by
CLIL. Therefore, the teacher needs to consider different cognitive and affective aspects when
talking about linguistic and cultural differences in the course of CLIL in order to enable the
learner to develop empathy (cf. ibid., 36). Further, CLIL supports the ability for subject
specific discourse, especially in terms of receptive and productive skills and competences.
10
This includes different strategies of teacher and learner to recall topic related linguistic and
content pre-knowledge as well as strategies of deducing meanings and strategies of
processing sources of different kinds, like, for instance, skimming, scanning, receptive and
detailed reading (cf. ibid.). Moreover, the model shows, that CLIL systematically supports
CALP and the development of the learner's study skills by practicing and raising awareness
of different study skills and at the same time providing the learner with linguistic support.
Besides, CLIL fosters the development of a subject specific lexicon and encourages the pupils
to exercise different cognitive operations in the foreign language while using subject specific
discourse functions, such as describing and explaining (cf. ibid., 38).
Apart from this heuristic model, another important approach towards content and language
integrated learning is the reflexive model developed by BREIDBACH (2007). He
differentiates between 5 dimensions of bilingual didactics. The conceptual dimension refers to
the acquisition of subject specific notions and concepts. The methodological dimension
comprises knowledge of subject specific methods and skills. Additionally, the discursive
dimension aims at developing linguistic conventions of the subject. The interactional
dimension includes social and communicative skills in the classroom. At last, the reflexive
dimension aims at developing strategies for dealing with experience of social and subject
specific otherness (cf. VIEBROCK, 112). This model is often referred to in the discourse of
intercultural learning which I will discuss later on.
The emphasis in CLIL is clearly laid on subject specific methods and contents. BOSENIUS
understands subject specific learning as a combination of individual learning on the basis of
the pupil's pre-knowledge and cognitive learning corresponding with the formation of
subjective theories (cf. BOSENIUS Content and Language Integrated Learning, 18). To
encourage the students to form their own hypotheses in the context of intercultural learning,
they need to engage in constructive dialogues (cf. ibid., 19). BOSENIUS claims that cognitive
operations of the learner are closely interrelated with the pupils' attitudes. In fact, their
attitudes play an integral role in the processes of negotiating meaning (cf. ibid., 20). Therefore
it is important for the learners to develop a positive affective disposition towards the group
speaking the foreign language and to inspire the learner for interaction with them. In that way
the pupils are enabled to psychologically an emotionally identify themselves with people of
another cultural background (cf. ibid.). In the process of generating subjective hypotheses in a
foreign language, the pupils face many challenges, especially as there often is a discrepancy
between the learner's cognitive and linguistic abilities. Therefore, BOSENIUS argues for
11
further language support in CLIL classrooms as WILDHAGE and OTTEN do. BOSENIUS
draws on ZYDATIß' considerations about cognitive operations typical for CLIL (qtd. in
BOSENIUS Content and Language Integrated Learning, 19):
Formation
of
Theory
Principles
Evaluation
Classification
Interpreting Data
Uttering opinions and
preferences
Concept formation
Explaining and predicting
Weighing and evaluating
Definitions
Generating and testing
Criticising (sources,
hypotheses
methods)
Theorems and constructs
Generalising: cause and
Finding solutions and
effect, reasons, motives
making decisions (goals,
means
values,
strategies)
Considering this table from the perspective of bilingual instruction in contrast to the
perspective of traditional teaching, it seems obvious that linguistic support in CLIL
classrooms is needed. As many of the cognitive strategies mentioned in the table already need
to be practiced in first language instruction, it goes without saying that in bilingual lessons
linguistic support has to be offered.
b) Support of language learning
Traditional foreign language teaching should enable the pupils to communicate in meaningful
interactions and therefore provide the basis for further language development in the bilingual
subject (cf. THÜRMANN Eine eigenständige Methodik für den bilingualen
Sachfachunterricht?, 76). Discourse competence is essential for interaction in the classroom.
Hence, language acquisition has to be supported as well. In this context, input theories (e.g.
by Krashen) need to be faced critically. International student assessment programmes, such as
PISA, demonstrated that performance does not only depend on input provided in classes. On
the contrary, performance also depends heavily on the learner's ability to handle the specific
register of language that is applied in the context of schools (cf. THÜRMANN Zur
Konstruktion von Sprachgerüsten im bilingualen Sachfachunterricht, 139). The afore
Details
- Pages
- Type of Edition
- Erstausgabe
- Publication Year
- 2013
- ISBN (eBook)
- 9783954895892
- ISBN (Softcover)
- 9783954890897
- File size
- 1.4 MB
- Language
- English
- Publication date
- 2013 (August)
- Keywords
- Social Studies Politics Bilingual Instruction Bilingual Teaching English
