English in Elementary Schools. Anja Steinlen
Third, the introduction of CLIL takes place more often in secondary levels, while it is commonplace for IM education to begin at kindergarten or elementary levels (see also Burmeister, 2013; Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter, 2014; Genesee, 1987). Finally, CLIL and IM programs may differ in their intensity: CLIL programs in Europe are often characterized by teaching only one or two subjects in the target language (e.g., history, geography or science), corresponding to 10-30% of the teaching time. In Canada, however, IM programs may only be labeled as such when more than 50% of the teaching time is conducted in the new language. This difference is illustrated below in chapter 2.3.3.
2.3.3 Intensity of different bilingual programs
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:
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.
2.3.4 Bilingual programs as “elitist” programs
In Germany, bilingual programs are considered to be ‘elitist’ because they often are attended by students with particular personal, intellectual, or familial characteristics. This is partly due to the fact that schools do not always randomly assign students to a particular program, especially when there are more applicants than places (see e.g., Apsel, 2010; Genesee, 1987; Swain & Lapkin, 1982; Zaunbauer & Möller, 2007). Student-selection factors may include the age-appropriate knowledge of the L1, the ability to concentrate, perseverance, commitment and/or communication abilities (e.g., Kersten, Fischer, Burmeister, Lommel, Schelletter, Steinlen & Thomas, 2010b). For example, employing a large longitudinal study comparing students in mainstream and IM elementary schools in Germany, Zaunbauer & Möller (2007, see also Zaunbauer & Möller, 2006, 2010; Gebauer, Zaunbauer & Möller, 2012, 2013) reported that in grade 1, IM students outperformed their peers in mainstream programs in a nonverbal intelligence test and pointed out that these cognitive differences may also point to prior selection effects (see also chapter 2.6).
Elementary schools may discourage parents of struggling learners (e.g., dyslexic children and children with auditory / perceptual / concentration problems) to attend an IM program, often reasoning that such a program would be too large of a burden for such children (Fischer, 2019). Other schools have opted for an alternative solution: when more students than can be accepted to the bilingual program have applied for admission, these students are randomly assigned to a bilingual or regular school program. For example, many IM schools, particularly in Canada, employ a lottery system, as in the case of the St. Lambert school (e.g., Genesee, 1987). Ideally, then, the IM students would be identical to regular students in all respects, except that they would be enrolled in different programs. Indeed, the results of nonverbal intelligence tests carried out in the St. Lambert school did not show any differences between first graders in the IM and in the regular program (e.g., Lambert & MacNamara, 1969; Lambert & Tucker, 1972; Genesee, 1987).
The three schools where data have been drawn for this study deal very differently with the admission of students in their bilingual programs (see chapter 4.1 for more information). The Muhlius Schule in Kiel and the Platanus Schule in Berlin offer only one FL program, and that is a bilingual one. However, the Muhlius Schule is a public school, catering to a relatively high number of students with learning difficulties or associated problems that hinder learning (e.g., Steinlen & Gerdes, 2015), and there are no restrictions on admission. The Platanus Schule in Berlin is a private school, and the children are preselected for cognitive, linguistic and communicative skills (see Steinlen & Piske, 2018c). The Hügelschule in Tübingen, finally, has offered both a regular program and a partial immersion program since 2008/09 (e.g., Steinlen, 2016, 2017, 2018a, b; Steinlen & Piske, 2013, 2015,