mastery (see Met, 1999: no page).
2.3.2 Different bilingual programs: CLIL vs. IM
Throughout Europe, the umbrella term Content and Language Integrated Learning or CLIL is used to refer to the educational option of teaching non-language subjects through a second language (L2). More specifically, this term pertains to “all types of provision in which a second language (a foreign, regional or minority language and/or another official state language) is used to teach certain subjects in the curriculum other than the language lessons themselves” (Eurydice, 2006: 8). In the Anglo-American context, however, the term “immersion” (IM) is being used. Both concepts, CLIL and IM, have in common that subject teaching takes place in a language that does not correspond to the students’ ambient language (i.e., English instead of German in Germany).
The following core features are also shared by CLIL and IM programs (e.g., Nikula & Mård-Miettinen, 2014). First, both share the conviction that foreign/second language competence should not be regarded as a separate skill but one intertwined with students’ cognitive, conceptual and social development, best supported by engaging students in meaningful and cognitively and academically challenging language use. Second, CLIL and IM subjects are timetabled as content and not as language lessons, which also means that teachers are typically content rather than language teachers. Third, CLIL and IM subjects complement foreign language instruction rather than serving as its replacement.
However, Nikula & Mård-Miettinen (2014: 2) point out that that demarcating CLIL and IM may simply result in “dead ends” because CLIL and IM as terms have fuzzy boundaries, both when used in academic discourse and as everyday concepts. Nevertheless, IM and CLIL show many differences (see Nikula & Mård-Miettinen, 2014 for a detailed description). First, IM and CLIL differ according to the geographical and sociopolitical context and their dates of origin (starting in Canada in the 1960s and in Europe in the 1990s, respectively). Second, the new language often is a national language in immersion programs (e.g., French in Canada) but a transnational lingua franca in CLIL programs in Europe (e.g., English in Germany). For this reason, CLIL teachers are more commonly non-native speakers of the instructional language than immersion teachers, i.e., lingua franca users of English themselves. Third, the introduction of CLIL takes place more often in secondary levels, while it is commonplace for IM education to begin at kindergarten or elementary levels (see also Burmeister, 2013; Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter, 2014; Genesee, 1987). Finally, CLIL and IM programs may differ in their intensity: CLIL programs in Europe are often characterized by teaching only one or two subjects in the target language (e.g., history, geography or science), corresponding to 10-30% of the teaching time. In Canada, however, IM programs may only be labeled as such when more than 50% of the teaching time is conducted in the new language. This difference is illustrated below in chapter 2.3.3.
2.3.3 Intensity of different bilingual programs
As mentioned above, bilingual programs (in Germany and elsewhere) differ according to their intensity, i.e., the quantity of FL input. Kersten (2019) provided an overview of content-based approaches in FL teaching, ranging from low to high intensity:
Continuum of FL intensity in content-based approaches (adopted from Kersten 2019: 40).
In Kersten’s (2019) view, content can – and also should – be part of any regular FL teaching, although in such programs the focus is not on content, but on the FL. To reiterate, bilingual programs (particularly in Europe) are conceived under the generic term “CLIL”, which encompasses all forms of teaching one or several subjects in a FL (e.g., Coyle et al., 2010; Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols, 2008; KMK, 2013). Less-intensive bilingual programs include individual bilingual modules or projects, where, for example, the topic “water” is taught in the FL over a limited period of time, usually lasting only a few days or weeks. “Bilingualer Sachfachuntericht” (or CLIL proper), which in Germany is most widely taught from secondary level 1 onwards, usually offers one to two subjects in the foreign language (for example history, geography), often lasting for one year or several years. The most intensive forms of bilingual teaching are immersion (IM) programs. In partial IM programs, at least 50% of the curriculum is taught in the FL (this also applies to two-way or dual IM programs1). In full (or total) IM programs, teaching takes place 100% in the FL and over a longer period, i.e., for many years. In Canada, total IM programs are often provided for young English learners in French IM programs, which turn into partial IM programs in later years in order to provide additional teaching in the students’ L1 English (e.g., Genesee, 1987)2. As a result, IM programs are the most intensive forms of bilingual education in the continuum of programs varying in FL intensity (e.g., Burmeister & Massler, 2010; Kersten, 2019; Mehisto et al., 2008, as illustrated in Figure 1) and have been found to be particularly effective in terms of FL competence, without neglecting subject competence (e.g., Genesee 1987, 2004; Pérez-Cañado, 2012; Wode 1995, 2009; Wesche, 2002, and also see below). In Germany, however, total IM programs (where the target language is used exclusively in all lessons and subjects in school) are not possible because, according to the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK, 2013b), the subject German must be taught in German. That means that in elementary schools in Germany, only a maximum of 70-80% of the teaching time can be conducted in the new language, corresponding to partial IM programs (for a further review, see Piske, 2015).
In her review of IM programs, Wesche (2002) posited the question as to how much FL exposure would be needed to ensure adequate language development for learners in order to be able to maintain grade level learning in their other academic studies. She showed that in 50/50 IM programs with an early start (i.e., in grade 1 or kindergarten), a second language can be effectively taught, but that gains vis-a-vis early ‘total’ IM are lower, or roughly commensurate with the relative total time spent in the FL (Wesche, 2002). However, due to the restrictions outlined above, any comparisons involving total IM programs are not possible in Germany. As Wesche (2002) also pointed out, late-starting, low-intensity bilingual programs (i.e., 20/80 programs3 starting in grade 7) may be quite successful in enhancing the FL proficiency of academically-inclined (Gymnasium) students (for Germany see e.g., Burmeister & Daniel, 2002; Köller, Leucht & Pant, 2012; Nold, Hartig, Hinz & Rossa, 2008; Rumlich, 2016; Wode, 1995, 2009). Such programs may also be successful at the lower secondary school level, as shown in studies on Realschule (Rischawy, 2016) and Hauptschule (Schwab, 2013) in Germany. Thus, bilingual programs can be implemented at every school level without compromising age-appropriate subject knowledge. Evidence for 20/80 programs with an early start is, unfortunately, scarce (see also Piske, 2020). Here, the FL is generally offered in only one subject, often science for the elementary school context. The findings of pilot studies indicate improvement in FL learning from grade 1 to 4, although the scores of the language tests did not always differ in a statistically significant way from year to year (e.g., Couve de Murville, Kersten, Maier, Ponto & Weitz, 2016; Steinlen & Gerdes, 2015). Unfortunately, academic achievement was not taken into consideration in these studies.
In the following, “bilingual schools”, “bilingual programs” or “CLIL programs” are used as umbrella terms, which subsume bilingual programs with lower or higher intensity. The term “IM” (immersion) is ascribed to partial immersion programs where the FL is used more than 50% of the teaching time. Abbreviations such as Bili-20, Bili-50 or Bili-70 are used to illustrate the intensity of any bilingual program, in which 20%, 50% and 70%, respectively, are offered in the target language, with Bili-50 and Bili-70 programs corresponding to partial IM programs.
2.3.4 Bilingual programs as “elitist” programs
In Germany, bilingual programs are considered to be ‘elitist’ because they often are attended by students with particular personal, intellectual, or familial characteristics. This is
