Institutional language learning and teaching

In educational settings, there are many different teaching models7 regarding how insti-

tutions deal with multilingual students. The prevalent models for teaching in multilingual primary education will be presented below, drawing on the widespread model by Baker (2006), who identifies 10 broad types of bilingual education.8 The 10 types are conse-

quently placed into three different forms of education, depending on the approach to bilingualism and the aim considering linguistic diversity:

1. Monolingual forms of education for bilinguals 2. Weak forms of education for bilinguals

3. Strong forms of bilingual education for bilingualism and biliteracy

Of those 10 types, the relevant ones for this study will be further explained in detail below. In Tab. 4, an overview of the different types of programs relevant for this study are summarized:

7 _{For examples of overviews, see Niedrig (2011); Wright (2014).}

8 _{The 10 types of programs suggested by Baker are: 1. Mainstreaming/Submersion (Structured Immer-}

sion), 2. Mainstreaming/Submersion with withdrawal classes/Sheltered English/Content-Based ESL, 3. Segregationist, 4. Transitional, 5. Mainstream with Foreign Language Teaching, 6. Separatist, 7. Immersion, 8. Maintenance/Heritage Language, 9. Two Way/Dual language, 10. Mainstream bilingual. Even if typologies might suggest static systems, it is important to bear in mind that such systems develop and evolve continuously.

Types of program Typical type of student

Language of

the classroom Societal and educational aim Aim of language outcome

MONOLINGUAL FORMS OF EDUCATION FOR MULTILINGUALS

MAINSTREAMING/

SUBMERSION Language minority Majority language Assimilation/ subtractive Monolingualism MAINSTREAMING/

SUBMERSION with withdrawal classes

Language

minority Majority language with “pull out” classes Assimilation/ Subtractive Monolingualism

WEAK FORMS OF MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION FOR MULTILINGUALS

TRANSITIONAL Language

minority Moves from minority to majority language Assimilation/ subtractive Relative mono-lingualism

SEPARATIST Language

majority Majority language with L2/FL lessons Limited enrich-ment Limited multilin-gualism

STRONG FORMS OF MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION FOR MULTILINGUALS

IMMERSION Language

majority Bilingual with initial emphasis on L2 Pluralism and enrichment. Additive

Multilingualism and multiliter- acy

Tab. 4: Forms of dealing with multilingualism in educational settings (modified from Baker, 2006)

Submersion vs. immersion teaching models

The submersion teaching model (Busch, 2012) is an approach in which the academic language, the language used for instruction in school, is the language spoken by the (power) majority in the region/country. It is the second (or third or fourth …) language for some students, multilingual from birth or through migration, newly arrived or just learning another language. Baker places this in the first form (monolingual form of edu- cation), calling it “mainstreaming”. It is the most common approach in European coun- tries for newly arrived students. Rather than acknowledging the students’ home lan- guage, the aim has been to assimilate and achieve strong knowledge in the majority language. Baker (2006) gives the following metaphor:

Submersion contains the idea of a language minority student thrown into the deep and expected to swim as quickly as possible without the help of floats or special swimming lessons. (p. 216)

In the submersion model, there are different additive approaches for newly arrived stu- dents such as pull-out classes in which they may receive compensatory lessons in the majority language and may also receive lessons in the home language (mother tongue instruction). Assimilation is the aim.

The immersion model would be the opposite of submersion and Baker (2006) identifies it as a strong form of bilingual education. The students are taught through the medium of a foreign language. The academic language (the language of instruction) therefore is an additional, minority language (seen in relation to the student). Immersion programs often use different teachers for each of the languages (García, 2009). This model is based upon a Canadian experiment, the “St. Lambert Experiment” (Lambert and Tucker, 1972) and this method is today continuously used by many bilingual schools9

(García, 2009). The target group in the Canadian experiment was the education-ori- ented middle class with English as a L1, and French was used as the language for instruction. In an immersion model, the student’s home language (in the case of that study it was English) is honored as well as used throughout the school and also rein- forced in society at large. Multilingualism in a linguistic sense does not have to be a manifested goal of the teaching. Other advantages are seen with the multilingualism, such as societal benefits by knowing another (often high status) language and in the end obtaining economic advantages through that language knowledge (Baker, 2006). In between the two counterposed methods of submersion and immersion, Baker places a third weaker form of educational approach, transitional programs or measures. This form is used in many European countries today with separate classes for newly arrived students in the beginning of the schooling in the new country; students can later be moved to a regular class.10 The language minority students might temporarily be allowed

to use their home languages, until they are proficient enough in the new one. The aim of this form is assimiliationist. The priority of the schooling is that the children need to function in the majority language in society. Baker (2006, p. 221) compares this with a “brief, temporary swim in one pool until the child is perceived as capable of moving to the mainstream pool”.

9 _{The immersion model has had considerable influence on European bilingual education programs,}

however, it should be noted that it is not directly transferable to all social contexts (García (2009).

10 _{This is called Vorbereitungsklasse in Germany, förberedelseklass in Sweden. In Chile, this concept is}

The discussion on the different models is ongoing and the search for the ‘best model’ never-ending. Based on these basic institutional organizational models, a plethora of local variations has arisen as well. In discussions regarding different models, there are several aspects to consider, such as individual conditions for learning and different so- cio, economic, political and cultural contexts, making a comparison almost impossible.11

It is important to have in mind that no type can be said to be overall better than another. The advantages of one type over another are always related to the lens through which one looks, as well as the aims of the education.

In the present study, two types of teaching models traditionally used to describe different kinds of multilingual education programs and approaches are observed: submersion and immersion (see Chapter 5). These terms shift depending on whether one is speak- ing about a program itself or the power relationship of the language(s) of instruction in relation to the student. In this thesis, the focus is on the latter.