& Massler, 2011).
So far, only a few coursebooks for elementary school bilingual teaching have been published, because bilingual teaching takes place on a small scale in Germany, and because these bilingual programs vary in intensity and cover different subjects. Teachers may then hesitate to start bilingual teaching due to the limited choice of teaching materials available. This situation calls for universities and centers for teacher training to step in to develop and publish, in co-operation with experienced bilingual teachers, materials that provide an appropriate blending of authenticity and classroom needs for any age group (e.g., Böttger & Müller, 2020; Steiert & Massler, 2010; Tel2L, 2000).
2.3.8 Assessment in bilingual programs
As noted above, CLIL classes follow the regular curriculum of the content subject, and students’ progress is therefore evaluated on a regular basis (KMK, 2013b). However, there is still a lack of official regulations for the assessment of learners’ attainment in CLIL teaching (e.g., Massler & Steiert, 2011). As the CLIL approach is relatively new in the European context, many teachers are insecure about how to assess CLIL learning. According to Massler & Steiert (2011), CLIL assessment differs from regular assessment in several ways because it needs to account for the goals and objectives of two different subjects, including knowledge, competences, skills, attitudes, and behavior, for both language and content. Particularly for the elementary school context, Steiert & Massler (2011) proposed that any assessment of CLIL learning should take into consideration both components – language and content – in an integrated manner (which may differ according to the intensity of the program). Such assessments ideally include the learners’ developmental stage (as there may be a gap between the learners’ cognitive and linguistic competences) and both product and process (i.e., summative and formative assessment). Finally, it is important to make CLIL assessment transparent with respect to the question of which language will be assessed (i.e. the school language or the FL) and how much the FL will count. In some schools, for example, assessments in CLIL subjects are carried out not in the FL (e.g., English) but in the school language (e.g., German), in order to avoid a confound of FL knowledge and subject knowledge (e.g., Tel2L, 2000). More information on assessment, particularly regarding FL reading and writing skills in the bilingual elementary school context, is provided in chapter 7.8.
2.3.9 Studies on L1 and FL reading and writing in bilingual programs
In Germany, bilingual programs have been examined in several large-scale studies focusing on one-way immersion and two-way immersion programs. The MOBI-project (“Monolinguales und bilinguales Lernen”) ran from 2005 to 2009 (e.g., Gebauer et al., 2012, 2013; Kuska, Zaunbauer & Möller, 2010; Zaunbauer & Möller, 2006, 2007, 2010; Zaunbauer, Bonerad & Möller, 2005; Zaunbauer, Gebauer & Möller, 2012, 2013) and involved over 650 elementary school students in Northern Germany attending either bilingual (immersion) programs (where all subjects were taught in English except for German-as-a-subject), i.e. one-way programs, or regular EFL programs (where English was taught as a subject), respectively, from grade 1 onwards. The focus of the MOBI-project was on the development of cognitive skills and language skills, such as German reading and writing, English vocabulary and reading, as well as the development of content knowledge in mathematics and science, which were assessed mainly with standardized tests. In grade 4, the data included around 300 students in immersion programs (e.g. Zaunbauer et al., 2012).
The aim of the second project is to evaluate the two-way immersion programs of the “Staatliche Europa-Schulen Berlin” (SESB, e.g., Möller et al., 2017). Teaching takes place in German and in one of the respective partner languages, i.e., English, French, Greek, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, or Turkish, and half of the teaching time is devoted to one of the two languages. The composition of the classes generally (but not exclusively) consists of 50% of learners with the first language German and of 50% of learners with the respective partner language as L1. The teachers of the subjects taught in the partner language usually speak the partner language as L1. The focus of this project is on the development of reading skills, mathematics and science in German and the partner language. The results are also compared to the development of other students in monolingual programs. Altogether, 789 students in grade 4 participated in this study.
In 2015, the Federal State of Bavaria initiated a project called “Lernen in zwei Sprachen – Bilinguale Grundschule Englisch” (Learning in two languages – bilingual elementary school English), with 21 elementary schools located all over Bavaria. The students in grades 1-4 were taught in two languages (i.e. German and English) in the subjects of mathematics, science, art, music and PE, corresponding to less intensive bilingual programs with less than 50% conducted in the target language English. Instruction in the bilingual classes was based on the competency expectations formulated in the curriculum LehrplanPLUS Primary School. Teaching units or phases in the subjects were conducted in English on suitable topics and occasions. The respective teacher selected topics suitable for the English language, and the focus was on implicit teaching of the English language. Lessons in the bilingual classes were given according to the timetable, i.e. without additional time quotas. The final report included data from 430 fourth graders (Böttger & Müller, 2020).
Since 2012, Steinlen and Piske have conducted studies on L1 and L2 language skills in three bilingual elementary schools in Germany. The main focus of these studies has been on the development of German and English by minority and majority language students. Most of the studies took place with students attending a partial immersion program offered by the Hügelschule (Tübingen, Germany). As another cohort at the Hügelschule has been added each year, the sample size increases by publication date, with more recent samples containing cohorts from earlier studies (e.g., Steinlen, 2016, 2017, 2018a, b; Steinlen & Piske, 2013, 2015, 2016a, b, 2018a,b, 2020, i. pr., Yadollahi et al., 2020). Other studies of this project dealt with a less intensive bilingual program at the Muhliusschule in Kiel (Steinlen & Gerdes, 2015; Steinlen, 2018a) and with an intensive partial immersion program at the Platanus Schule in Berlin (Steinlen & Piske, 2018c), where 20% and 70% of the teaching time, respectively, was conducted in English. Focusing on reading and writing, the results of these projects will be presented below.
2.3.10 L1 reading and writing in bilingual programs
In studies on reading comprehension and reading fluency skills in the majority language German at the end of grade 4, children in elementary schools in Germany with partial IM programs (one-way and two-way) have been compared to those in mainstream programs. No significant differences between the two groups were reported, and the immersion groups achieved age-appropriate values (e.g., Baumert et al., 2017; Gebauer et al. 2012, 2013; Möller et al., 2018; Steinlen, 2016; Steinlen & Piske, 2013, 2015, 2016a, 2018a; Zaunbauer et al., 2005, 2013, Zaunbauer & Möller, 2006, 2007, 2010, see also Baumert et al., 2012 for sixth grade students).
Similar results regarding majority language children’s literacy skills in their L1 have been reported for the Canadian French IM context. L1 English children in IM programs generally obtained the same results in L1 English reading tests as L1 English children in non-IM programs (e.g., Genesee, 1978, 2004; Genesee & Jared, 2008; Genesee, Holobow, Lambert & Chartrand, 1989; Geva & Clifton, 1994; Lambert & Tucker, 1972; Rubin, Turner & Kantor, 1991; Swain & Lapkin, 1982; Turnbull, Lapkin & Hart, 2001, 2003). And again, similar results regarding the development of children’s respective L1s have also been reported for IM programs in other countries (e.g., Cheng, Kirby, Quiang & Wade-Woolley, 2010 for China; Björklund & Mård-Miettinen, 2011 for Finland; Lasagabaster, 2001 for the Basque Country; Jenniskens, Leest, Wolbers, Krikhaar, Teunissen de Graaff, Unsworth, & Coppens, 2018 for the Netherlands). As students’ reading performance is also affected by their basic cognitive abilities, their social status and the level of their parents’ education (e.g., Baumert et al., 2017), these factors have been controlled for in many studies. The results of the studies generally indicate that attending IM programs does not seem to negatively affect the
