Bilingual education has become popular in many countries in the last two decades. It is generally acknowledged that learning a second language (L2) through subject content has a positive impact on students’ L2 learning, but there is less agreement on whether this also applies to learning subject content knowledge in and through L2. This cross-sectional study compared Dutch pre-university mainstream and bilingual education students in grades 7 and 9 on a history knowledge test, taking into consideration the language of instruction and testing. Students were also tested on their motivation to learn and affinity with history, because of the alleged higher motivation bilingual education students bring to the classroom. Multilevel analyses showed that bilingual education students in grade 7 lagged behind in the English part of the test but performed at the same level in the Dutch part. 9th bilingual education graders on the other hand performed significantly better on the knowledge test than 9th mainstream graders in both L2 and L1, thus providing evidence for the non-detrimental effect of bilingual education on the acquisition of subject content knowledge.
DOCUMENT
This contribution addresses two studies of the processes and outcomes of English as a foreign language (EFL) in Dutch primary education. Firstly, this article describes a preliminary study of the learning outcomes at the end of primary education, comparing pupils’ language proficiency after either two years or six to eight years of low-intensity EFL programs. Secondly, it describes the outcomes of a subsequent classroom observation study in a high-intensity bilingual primary education pilot in grade 1, focusing on teacher language use and teacher-pupil interaction. Results are related to learning outcome in terms of pupils’ receptive vocabulary knowledge. Conclusions focus on foreign language teaching in primary education in general, and bilingual primary education in particular.
DOCUMENT
The role of subject teachers in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has received little attention, since most research focuses on language learning results of students. This exploratory study aims to gain insight into the perceptions of Dutch bilingual education history teachers by comparing teaching CLIL with regular history teaching. We used questionnaires and interviews to collect data. Results show that bilingual education history teachers perceived their dual task as language and subject teachers to be challenging. Teaching in English also enriched their teaching skills and eventually had a positive influence on their level of job satisfaction.
DOCUMENT
This small-scale observational study explores how Dutch bilingual education history teachers (BHTs) focus on the L2 component in their CLIL-lessons. We observed and rated eight BHTs on five language teaching categories. Results show that Dutch BHTs focus more strongly on using the L2 to teach subject content and that they tend to be less engaged in teaching specific second language topics, such as focus on form or language learning strategies. Further results and suggestions for improving the BHTs’ L2 focus are discussed together with a plea for a CLIL definition that is more in line with the everyday reality of the CLIL classroom.
DOCUMENT
This study highlights tensions and challenges experienced by language teachers in CLIL contexts. Using an example from the Netherlands, it explores the pedagogical and collaborative practices of Teachers of English in Bilingual streams (TEBs). The study shows how, using formal and practical theories, pedagogical and collaborative practices were formulated and used to investigate the beliefs and practices of language teachers in bilingual settings. The paper presents the operationalisation of 36 practices for TEBs and reports on an online survey investigating TEBs’ stated beliefs and practices. The findings suggest this set of practices has potential, both as a professional development tool for language teachers in bilingual education settings, and for further research. Results of the online survey revealed that the disciplinary identity of most Dutch TEBs leads to a focus on language, communication, literature, and language arts. TEBs are not necessarily aware of, and do not automatically consider, possibilities for expanding their own pedagogical practices in relation to subject-specific language or supporting and collaborating with their subject teacher colleagues. We suggest that policy guidelines, curricula development and teacher education programmes should pay more attention to the unique position of language teachers in these settings.
DOCUMENT
In CLIL contexts in the Netherlands, learners use the target language meaningfully in subject lessons parallel to English classes and English teachers are expected to co-operate with subject teacher colleagues. What does this mean for content and language in English lessons and for English teachers’ pedagogical and collaborative practices? For example, it has been suggested that Teachers of English in Bilingual streams (TEBs) may need to use different language teaching methodologies to mainstream English teachers. Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010) suggest “the language needed in CLIL settings does not necessarily follow the same grammatical progression one would find in a language-learning setting.”(Coyle et al, 2010: 35) and that this has consequences for language teachers’ approaches to planning for CLIL learners; “It is not built on a grammatical model where progression focuses on a gradation of grammatical concepts, but incorporates grammatical progression from different perspectives.” (2010: 59)To explore the challenges facing TEBs, Dale, Oostdam and Verspoor (2017) reviewed the literature on language teachers in various forms of bilingual education. They found the literature referred to a wide variety and range of types and aspects of language, types of content, theories informing LTs’ pedagogical practices and issues for LTs’ collaborative practices. Even though there were no one-fits-all approaches to be found, a framework of possible choices to be made emerged. The framework presents a landscape for TEBs in four quadrants, based on the literature.This presentation will discuss this framework in the light of a subsequent qualitative study exploring idealisations of TEBs’ pedagogical and collaborative practices in the Netherlands. Focus group discussions were held with stakeholders in bilingual streams. These included members of quality assurance panels responsible for certification of bilingual schools, practising TEBs and subject teachers. On the basis of inductive and deductive analysis of the focus group transcripts, we will discuss the extent to which stakeholders’ ideals for TEBs reflect the literature. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dale,L. Oostdam, R., & Verspoor, L. (2017, submitted) Searching for Identity and Focus: Towards an analytical framework for language teachers in bilingual education Manuscript in preparation
DOCUMENT
Across the globe, linguistically heterogeneous populations increasingly define school systems at the same time that developing the ability to communicate cross-culturally is becoming essential for internationalized economies. While these trends seem complimentary, they often appear in paradoxical opposition as represented in the content and execution of nationwide education policies. Given the differing geopolitical contexts within which school systems function, wide variation exists with regard to how policymakers address the challenges of providing language education, including how they frame goals and design programs to align with those goals. Here we present a cross-continental examination of this variation, which reveals parallel tensions among aims for integrating immigrant populations, closing historic achievement gaps, fostering intercultural understanding, and developing multilingual competencies. To consider implications of such paradoxes and parallels in policy foundations, we compare language education in the US and in the EU, focusing on the Netherlands as an illustrative case study.
LINK
In CLIL contexts, school subjects are taught in an additional language, allowing learners to acquire the target language through meaningful use. This places language teachers in an ambiguous position. What is their role in this context? On the one hand, language teachers are expected to collaborate with subject teacher colleagues; on the other hand, they teach separate language lessons. This double role provides language teachers and their educators with specific challenges in terms of identity and focus.To explore and explain the choices language teachers have, this review examines international research from the last 25 years with a primary focus on secondary schools. As recent discussions argue convincingly that research into CLIL, Content Based Instruction and immersion benefit from convergence and cross-fertilisation, we used a broad range of search terms to identify primary and secondary research.Selected articles were organised into four inquiry areas and analysed thematically: (1) language focus, (2) content focus of learning, (3) language teachers’ pedagogical practices, and (4) their collaboration with subject teachers. Based on these themes, we developed a framework for language teachers and their educators in bilingual education designed to help them explore, explain and develop their own identity and focus.
DOCUMENT
The purpose of this study was to determine if there are differences inoverall language ability and vocabulary of either Australian or overseasborn bilingual Dutch–English children and the possible parental influenceon these children’s language development. The participants were 86 children aged 4–12 years living in Australia and either born there or overseas in the Netherlands. Standardized language assessments were used to assess children’s expressive and receptive language skills in Dutch and English. Children born in Australia scored significantly higher on English language assessments and lower on the Dutch language assessments. When children’s parents frequently spoke Dutch with their children, they had significantly better Dutch skills, and when parents spoke primarily English at home, their children had better English skills. Based on outcomes on the questionnaires, multivariate logistic regression identified that storytelling and reading books in the heritage language contributed significantly to children’s Dutch lan- guage development). The study could not identify factors that contribute to English language development in Dutch children in Australia. However, for the Dutch language, frequent storytelling and reading books in Dutch are both important factors for development of the native language.
DOCUMENT
