Session Information
31 SES 13, Research on Writing and Academic Language
Paper Session
Contribution
Due to new forms and dynamics of migration, learners from increasingly different language backgrounds populate German schools. This is particularly true for urban areas: In cities like Hamburg or Duisburg, almost 50% of all children are born in a migrant family (Behörde für Schule und Berufsbildung 2014). Results of international large-scale assessment studies have repeatedly shown that migrant pupils are characterized by significantly lower levels of attainment than their non-migrant peers. In Germany, the achievement gap between pupils with and without an immigrant background is exceptionally large (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. Therefore, educational success strongly depends on the linguistic abilities of students. 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, the command of academic language (Cummins 1991) or the language of schooling (Schleppegrell 2004) is a prerequisite for academic achievement (Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa 1976). The acquisition of academic language has proven to be especially challenging for language-minority students (Heppt et al. 2014). Hence, methods for the integration of language and content learning have been developed in traditional immigrant countries like Australia or Canada since the 1980ies. After decades of officially not identifying as a country of immigration, the need for a continuous language support (German: Durchgängige Sprachbildung cf. Gogolin and Lange 2011) has been acknowledged by educational authorities in several Federal States in Germany as well: Educational curricula nowadays request teachers of all subjects and grades to focus on the development of their students’ academic language skills (cf. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg 2011). In addition, the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs reccommends continuous language support for a successful intercultural education (Kultusministerkonferenz 2013). Despite this positive development, we need to bear in mind that the question of how to translate this demand into pedagogical practice is still disregarded in both phases of German teacher training. In addition, implementation studies have shown that the introduction of new policies or frameworks does not necessarily lead to an actual change in teaching or the adoption of innovations (Gräsel 2010).
So far, there is not much empirical evidence regarding the realization of language support in different content subjects. A representative study conducted amongst teachers in Germany in 2012 shows that 91% of educators agree that language support is important and necessary (cf. Becker-Mrotzeck et al. 2012). Nevertheless, 61% of the participants report to not actively engage in the promotion of their students’ academic language skills. These results are supported by Riebling (2013) who carried out a survey amongst Natural Science teachers in Hamburg: More than 90% of the teachers in her sample report that they do not provide language support in their subject lessons (Riebling 2013). Moreover, it seems that teachers are generally not aware of the particularities of the academic language register and seldom address it explicitly in class (Nagy and Townsend 2012). To date, research in the field has primarily been focussed on Mathematics and Natural Sciences. Subjects classifying as Social Sciences have so far been neglected, although it is commonly agreed on that these subjects are predominantly based on texts (newspaper articles, source texts etc.) and therefore require specific literacy skills.
The present study investigates i) how language learning policies are translated into practice by Social Science teachers in Hamburg, ii) if the practices differ from Natural Science teachers and iii) which factors (personal as well as school-related) foster the occurrence of integrated language and content teaching.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
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. Behörde für Schule und Berufsbildung (ed.) (2014). Bildungsbericht Hamburg 2014. Münster & New York: Waxmann. Cummins, Jim (1991). Conversational and academic language proficiency in bilingual contexts. In: Jan H. Hulstijn & Johan F. Matter (eds.), Reading in Two Languages. AILA-Review 8-91, 75-89. Ellis, Elisabeth M. (2010). The invisible multilingual teacher: The contribution of language background to Australian ESL teachers’ professional knowledge and beliefs. International Journal of Multilingulism 1(2), 90-108. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg – Behörde für Schule und Berufsbildung (2011). Bildungsplan Stadtteilschule Jahrgangsstufe 5 bis 11. Lernbereich Gesellschaftswissenschaften. http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/2372648/data/lb-gesellschaftswissenschaften-sts.pdf [08.1.2015]. Gogolin, Ingrid & Lange, Imke (2011). Bildungssprache und Durchgängige Sprachbildung. In: Sara Fürstenau & Mechthild Gomolla (eds.), Migration und schulischer Wandel: Mehrsprachigkeit, 107-127). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Gräsel, Cornelia and Pachmann, Ilka (2004): Implementationsforschung – oder: der steinige Weg, Unterricht zu verändern. Unterrichtswissenschaft 32 (2004), 196-214. Heppt, Birgit; Haag, Nicole, Böhme, Katrin & Stanat, Petra (2014). The Role of Academic-Language Features for Reading Comprehension of Language-Minority Students and Students From Low-SES Families. In: Reading Research Quarterly 0(0), 1-22. Klieme, Eckhard; Jude, Nina; Baumert Jürgen & Prenzel, Manfred (2010). PISA 2000–2009: Bilanz der Veränderungen im Schulsystem. In: Eckhard Klieme et al. (eds.), PISA 2009. Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt, 277-300. Münster: Waxmann. Nagy, William & Townsend, Dianna (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly 47(1), 91-108. Nulty, Duncan (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 33(3), 301-314. Kultusministerkonferenz (2013). Interkulturelle Bildung und Erziehung in der Schule. http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/1996/1996_10_25-Interkulturelle-Bildung.pdf [16.04.2014]. Riebling, Linda (2013). Sprachbildung im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. Eine Studie im Kontext migrationsbedingter sprachlicher Heterogenität. Münster [u.a.]: Waxmann. Schleppegrell, Mary J. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics Perspective. London: Routledge. 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, Report written for UNESCO. Tampere: University of Tampere.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.