Two (or More) Languages Employed as Media of Instruction

Partial immersion bilingual education involves pupils learning content through instruction in two (or more) languages. As with the full immersion model, partial immersion bilingual education may be implemented at the beginning, in the middle, or towards the end of the pupils’ schooling. Furthermore, Johnstone (2006, 24–25) notes that programmes can begin at the pre-school level, where the L1 will be maintained whilst introducing the L2. In partial immersion programmes the model employed can be based on a 50:50 principle, or it may be the case that they are not divided strictly equally. García (2009, 291) argues that the languages do not need to be distributed equally in order to achieve bilingualism, ‘as long as the two languages are respected and given their appropriate value’. Therefore, it is essential that the participants hold positive language beliefs towards both of the languages present if they are to learn and maintain them successfully.

In some bilingual education programmes the class is made up of native speakers of both of the languages that act as the media of instruction. In this case both sets of pupils enter the school as monolinguals, and the aim is that they will exit as bilinguals in both languages. One of the advantages of this type of learning is that

within their class pupils are both ‘novices’ and ‘experts’ which facilitates the language learning of both groups (Christian 1996, 67). There is a range of terms employed to describe this type of programme, including two-way immersion or two- way bilingual education, developmental bilingual education, dual language

education, bilingual immersion, double immersion and interlocking education (Baker 2011, 222–23). Cummins (2003, 58) states that this type of bilingual education programme is endorsed by the majority of researchers in the field. The

implementation of this type of programme depends on there being a mix of minority and majority language children within a community. Although it is recognised as being advantageous, in a case where significant language shift has already taken place there may not remain many, or indeed any, minority language-speaking children.

In partial immersion programmes instruction is divided between the languages concerned for a certain amount of time in the school week, which can change in the course of the pupils’ school career; García labels this ‘sliding bilingual allocation’ (2009, 290). For example, more hours of instruction may be given in the pupils’ weaker language at the beginning of their schooling, but this might alter so that the languages are eventually allotted equal hours, or more hours may be assigned to the stronger language. However, the instruction may be divided equally between the languages throughout their schooling, the distribution of languages being dependent on the motivations of language-in-education policy-makers.

The curriculum followed in a bilingual education programme is generally the same as that which is followed in monolingual programmes, with the different non- language related subjects being divided between the languages of instruction. Baker (2011, 228) warns that the separation of languages by school subject may not be

neutral, and that if subjects linked to modern progress are taught in one language, and the other language is used for subjects associated with tradition and culture, this can influence the formulation of language attitudes. This underlines the notion that all decisions connected to language acquisition planning are made with certain agendas in mind.

The way that the languages are separated in schools and why this is the case should be considered when examining partial immersion programmes. Thinking about the physical learning environment of the school, the pupils may learn through both languages in the same classroom, or have separate classrooms for each

language. The linguistic landscape of bilingual classrooms in Alsace will be examined in chapter five.

One bilingual teacher may teach both languages, or the languages may be strictly separated and taught by two teachers independently. García (2009, 294) states that sometimes both languages are employed in the classroom at the same time, for example by a teacher and a teaching assistant. However, she highlights the

significance of who speaks which language:

One disadvantage of this arrangement is that, when there is a minority language, the teacher-aide is often the person who speaks it. Thus, the professional teacher raises the status of the majority language, while the teacher aide [sic] further stigmatizes the minority language.

This further underlines the argument that language policy is never neutral, and the way that each of the languages is present in partial immersion programmes has an influence on the language attitudes and practices of the pupils involved.

4.3.2.1 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)

In some cases only one non-language related subject from the school curriculum may be taught through the L2, a process which is referred to as content and language integrated learning (henceforth CLIL). This might be seen as a step between

traditional second or foreign language teaching and more extensive partial immersion programmes. In the European context, CLIL programmes have increased in

popularity since the 1990s, supported by the European Commission, which states that:

It can provide effective opportunities for pupils to use their new language skills now, rather than learn them now for use later. It opens doors on languages for a broader range of learners, nurturing self-confidence in young learners and those who have not responded well to formal language instruction in general education. It provides exposure to the language without requiring extra time in the curriculum, which can be of particular interest in vocational settings. (European Commission 2003)

Having the support of a prestigious international body such as the European Commission potentially has a strong influence on attitudes towards this type of bilingual education programme.

The benefits of this type of language learning are explained by García (2009, 130): ‘CLIL protects the development of the first language, while exposing students to the second language for a certain time which may start in primary school.’ Going beyond regular L2 learning, CLIL pupils employ the L2 as a tool to learn other academic subjects. CLIL presents an accessible option both for parents and for education authorities who are unsure about the benefits of more extensive programmes such as those highlighted above. Furthermore, as the availability of linguistically capable teachers can be an obstacle to the implementation of immersion bilingual classes, especially those concerning non-official languages (Tedick et al 2011, 8), CLIL is an attractive option as it requires fewer teaching staff.