Bilingual education in Germany has existed for more than 40 years: it is a product of the Élysée Treaty from 1963. Its aim was to stop the ‘hereditary enmity’, that had determined the relations between France and Germany for many years, through the increased teaching in French, especially in history classes. Nowadays, things have changed. At the conceptual level the German term ‘bilingualer Unterricht’ is more and more replaced by the European term ‘CLIL’, which stands for Content and Language Integrated Learning. At the level of content as well, changes have taken place. It is no longer the political idea of international friendship that dominates bilingual approaches.
The aim of CLIL is to convey cognitive-conceptual, discursive and methodical competences. That means the ability to understand and describe subject specific issues in the target language and to reflect and use subject specific procedures and problem solving strategies. This involved that not only French but also other languages like English or Spanish can be used as a communication medium and that is exactly what a foreign language in CLIL classes is supposed to be: a bare medium. It is not about learning English, it is about learning in English.
The foreign language is not in the foreground but it is used to talk about subject specific topics in an appropriate way. Hence, principles, aims and contents of the CLIL lesson are defined by the subject and not by the foreign language. The same counts for the didactic. Study und working techniques in CLIL classes are those of the subject and not of English lessons. This means that CLIL teachers must not try to solve grammar or language problems during the CLIL course. However, it is obvious that not allbn learners meet the requirements to talk about subject specific matters in their second language. This requests a high language register that learners in grade seven normally have not accomplished yet.
In consideration of the fact that such language problems are not to be solved in CLIL classes, the question arises how general English teachers can prepare their students for future CLIL classes in their English lessons appropriately. To answer this question it is necessary to analyse firstly the reasons for the linguistic problems in CLIL and the obstacles that hinder the students to participate in bilingual lessons. After that it is possible to provide approaches to solving these problems in form of CLIL preparation courses.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 The Linguistic Challenge of CLIL
3 The Preparation of CLIL in English Classes
3.1 The Theoretical Base of Scaffolding
3.2 Arrangement of Preparation Courses
3.2.1 The Content-Related Arrangement of a Preparation Course
3.2.2 The Temporal Arrangement of a Preparation Course
5 Conclusion
Objectives and Thematic Focus
The central objective of this paper is to examine how general English lessons in grades five and six can effectively prepare students for the linguistic and cognitive demands of future bilingual (CLIL) courses. The paper addresses the mismatch between students' subject-specific knowledge and their limited foreign language proficiency, proposing structured preparation courses as a necessary scaffold to bridge this gap.
- Analysis of the linguistic challenges (BICS vs. CALP) in the CLIL context.
- Application of the scaffolding concept to language learning.
- Development of pedagogical strategies for CLIL preparation.
- Content-related and temporal structuring of preparatory lessons.
- Integration of subject-specific study and working techniques.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 The Theoretical Base of Scaffolding
The term scaffolding was coined by the American psychologist Jerome Bruner in 1983, who studied the communication between parents and their children. He emphasises the child’s environment and especially the parental support systems for the child’s first language acquisition. According to Bruner, the child’s first language acquisition and its cognitive development take place simultaneously in instructing cooperative formats with its parents. By means of dialogic interaction, the parents build up a support system that deals as a scaffold for the child’s further development. This scaffold enables the child to effect successively higher cognitive performances in a verbal and non-verbal manner. This also applies to older learners. They can solve linguistic and cognitive tasks better in cooperation with or under the instructions of experts. With the aid of the scaffold provided by these experts, the novices are able to work more sophisticated and more comprehensive than they would do if they were alone (Zydatiss 2010: 2). Scaffolding in the context of CLIL seizes this theory.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter contextualizes the shift from historical political motives to the modern cognitive-conceptual aims of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Germany.
2 The Linguistic Challenge of CLIL: This section explores the discrepancy between students' basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and the cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) required for bilingual instruction.
3 The Preparation of CLIL in English Classes: This chapter introduces the role of preparatory courses in grades five and six, utilizing scaffolding to ready students for future CLIL requirements.
3.1 The Theoretical Base of Scaffolding: This part defines the scaffolding approach, distinguishing between micro-level and macro-level support systems for learner development.
3.2 Arrangement of Preparation Courses: This section highlights the necessity of planning and syllabus design in the absence of standardized materials to avoid arbitrary instruction.
3.2.1 The Content-Related Arrangement of a Preparation Course: This chapter details the four task-fields essential for preparation: communicative competences, linguistic devices, study techniques, and subject-relevant working techniques.
3.2.2 The Temporal Arrangement of a Preparation Course: This part proposes a four-semester phase model that gradually increases in complexity, moving from general language skills toward subject-specific demands.
5 Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes that systematic preparation is essential to help students internalize the necessary linguistic tools, allowing them to eventually deconstruct the scaffold and engage in professional discourse independently.
Keywords
Content and Language Integrated Learning, CLIL, Scaffolding, BICS, CALP, Bilingual Education, English Lessons, Preparation Course, Macro-level Scaffolding, Communicative Competences, Linguistic Devices, Subject-Specific Knowledge, Language Acquisition, Methodology, Educational Planning.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the transition of students into bilingual (CLIL) courses and argues that general English lessons in the lower grades must serve as a preparatory ground to bridge the language gap.
What are the primary thematic fields discussed?
The themes include the theoretical framework of scaffolding, the distinction between BICS and CALP, the content-related design of lessons, and the temporal sequencing of preparatory training.
What is the ultimate goal of the proposed preparation courses?
The goal is to equip students with the specific linguistic tools and study techniques required to express their subject knowledge effectively in a foreign language.
Which scientific method is utilized in this paper?
The paper employs a pedagogical and theoretical analysis, drawing upon existing educational research and models—specifically those of Bruner, Cummins, and Thürmann—to evaluate current teaching practices.
What does the main body of the text cover?
It covers the linguistic challenges in CLIL, the definition of scaffolding, and practical, structured approaches for arranging preparatory courses for secondary students.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include CLIL, Scaffolding, BICS, CALP, bilingual education, and subject-specific language instruction.
How does the author define the distinction between micro-level and macro-level scaffolding?
Micro-level scaffolding addresses the individual, ad-hoc linguistic problems of single students, whereas macro-level scaffolding is a structured, planned system provided to all students to broaden their methodical competences.
Why is the temporal arrangement of preparation courses deemed necessary?
It is necessary to define the process because the content elements represent different difficulty levels; a structured, phased approach over two years ensures that students are not overwhelmed and progress logically toward subject-specific requirements.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Sebastian Flock (Autor:in), 2014, Content and Language Integrated Learning. The Role of English Lessons in Preparation for Bilingual Courses, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/346867
