In most Western OECD countries, students with a migration background are characterized by significantly lower levels of educational performance and attainment than their non-immigrant peers (cf. Klieme et al. 2010). There is no doubt that language – the main medium of teaching and learning – is the key to understanding the subject content. Consequently, educational success strongly depends on the linguistic abilities of students. However, research has shown that it is necessary to differentiate between two differing kinds of language proficiency: While conversational language skills are required in social situations, academic language skills are essential for students to succeed in school (e.g. Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa 1976; Cummins 1981 & 2000). In Germany, the term ‘academic language’ (Bildungssprache) was first introduced to the educational landscape in the course of the model programme FörMig (supporting children and youth with a migrant background) which took place in ten federal states between 2004 and 2009.

Especially children and young people who are second-language learners are in need of continuous support when it comes to the acquisition of this particular register. In traditional immigrant countries like the United Kingdom, Australia or Canada, methods for the integration of language and content teaching (e.g. Language Across the Curriculum (LAC), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), Language Awareness and Scaffolding) have therefore been established since the 1980ies. Taking these approaches into account, the German FörMig team started developing the concept of ‘integrated language education’ in 2004. Its main concern is the cumulative development of academic language skills, including the integration of language support into every subject (cf. Gogolin und Lange 2011).

At least partially due to the efforts of FörMig, the importance of integrating language learning into all subjects has meanwhile been acknowledged by educational authorities in several German Federal States: Educational curricula nowadays request teachers of all subjects and grades to focus on the development of their students’ academic language skills (cf. eg: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg 2011a). Nonetheless, the question of how to translate this demand into pedagogical practice is still rather neglected in both phases of the German teacher training.

When looking at the current state of research, it becomes obvious that there is not much empirical evidence regarding the realization of language support in different content subjects. A representative study carried out amongst teachers in Germany by Becker-Mrotzeck et al. in 2012 shows that although 91% of educators agree that language support is important and necessary (cf. Becker-Mrotzeck et al. 2012). Nevertheless, 61% report that they do not actively engage in the promotion of their students’ academic language skills. According to the These results are supported Riebling (2013) who carried out a survey amongst natural science teachers in Hamburg, Germany: More than 90% of the teachers in her study report that they do not provide language support in their subject lessons (cf. Riebling 2013).

Interestingly, previous research in the field (in the German context) is primarily concerned with mathematics and natural sciences. Little seems to be known about subjects classifying as “social sciences” (history, politics, and geography) although it is commonly agreed on that these subjects are predominantly based on texts (textbooks, newspaper articles, source texts, presidential proclamations etc.) and therefore require specific literacy skills.

The present study investigates i) whether differences in the teaching practices of natural and social science teachers can be found and how they can be characterized and ii) which factors (personal as well as school-related) facilitate integrated language and content teaching.

Becker-Mrotzeck, Michael; Hentschel, Britta; Hippmann, Kathrin & Linnemann, Markus (2012): Sprachförderung an deutschen Schulen – die Sicht der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer. Ergebnisse einer Umfrage unter Lehrerinnen und Lehrern durchgeführt von IPSOS (Hamburg) im Auftrag des Mercator-Instituts für Sprachförderung und Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Universität zu Köln. Cummins, Jim (1981): The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University, Los Angeles. Cummins, Jim (2000): Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon [etc.]. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg – Behörde für Schule und Berufsbildung (2011a): Bildungsplan Stadtteilschule Jahrgangsstufe 5 bis 11. Lernbereich Naturwissenschaften. Gogolin, Ingrid & Lange, Imke (2011): Bildungssprache und Durchgängige Sprachbildung. In: Sara Fürstenau & Mechthild Gomolla (eds.), Migration und schulischer Wandel: Mehrsprachigkeit (S. 107-127). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Klieme, Eckhard et al. (eds.): PISA 2009. Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt. Münster: Waxmann. Prenzel, Manfred; Sälzer, Christine; Eckhard Klieme; Köller, Olaf (eds.) (2013): PISA 2012. Fortschritte und Herausforderungen in Deutschland. Zusammenfassung. Waxmann. Riebling, Linda (2013): Sprachbildung im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht: Eine Studie im Kontext migrationsbedingter sprachlicher Heterogenität. Münster: Waxmann. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove & Toukomaa, Pertti (1976): Teaching migrant children's mother tongue and learning the language of the host country in the context of the sociocultural situation of the migrant family. Helsinki: The Finnish National Commission for UNESCO.