Comparison of Language Immersion Models for Pupils Final Report February 2012 Comparison of Language Models for Pupils 2012 Parc Busnes Aberarad Castellnewydd Emlyn Sir Gaerfyrddin SA38 9DB Tel: 01239 711668 [email protected] www.iaith.eu Authors: Kathryn Jones, IAITH: Welsh Centre for Language Planning and Mona Wilson, University of Strathclyde The company and authors retain their usual rights to be acknowledged when quoted from this report. Commissioned by: Bòrd na Gàidhlig Darach House, Stoneyfield Business Park Inverness, IV2 7PA Tel: 01463 225454 www.gaidhlig.org.uk 2 Comparison of Language Models for Pupils 2012 Contents 1.0 Project aims and methodology ........................................................................... 19 2.0 Developing Gaelic medium education in Scotland – the current policy context .................................................................................................................. 21 3.0 Models of immersion education employed internationally .............................. 23 3.1 „Models‟ and „types‟ of bilingual education .......................................................... 23 3.2 Models of bilingual education: a word of warning ............................................... 25 3.3 Comparing „models‟ of immersion education ...................................................... 25 3.3.1 „Second language‟ immersion .................................................................... 26 3.3.2 Immersion revitalization bilingual education .............................................. 28 3.3.3 (Immersion in) Developmental Bilingual Education ................................... 31 3.3.4 Two-Way (dual language) Immersion ........................................................ 45 3.4 Learning the majority national language and modern languages ....................... 46 3.4.1 The European policy context ..................................................................... 46 3.4.2 CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning ...................................... 47 3.4.3 GME + CLIL approach to modern language teaching ................................ 49 3.4.4 Trilingual minority language education in the Basque Autonomous Community ................................................................................................ 49 3.5 What models have been most effective in producing and maintaining fluent speakers of a minority language? ....................................................................... 52 3.6 What are the structural (and financial) contexts within which such models operate successfully? ......................................................................................... 54 3.6.1 Legislative framework ................................................................................ 54 3.6.2 Resources and materials ........................................................................... 54 3.6.3 Teacher training ......................................................................................... 55 4.0 Managing diversity, different needs and biliteracy in GME: Some insights from international research .................................................................. 57 4.1 Catering for variation in pupil entry language abilities and linguistic backgrounds ....................................................................................................... 57 4.1.1 Immersion and pupils with additional learning needs ................................ 58 4.1.2 Language resources and assessments for pupils with different language profiles ....................................................................................... 59 4.1.3 Dealing with „latecomers‟ ........................................................................... 61 4.1.4 Providing support during transition to secondary school ........................... 63 3 Comparison of Language Models for Pupils 2012 4.2 Meeting the needs of first and second language pupils in the same class ......... 65 4.2.1 Pre-school and early years ........................................................................ 65 4.2.2 The balance of language background pupils in the same class ................. 66 4.2.3 Meeting the needs of L2 minority language learners ................................. 67 4.2.4 Meeting the needs of L1 minority language speakers ............................... 68 4.2.5 Meeting the needs of both L1 and L2 pupils during the early years ........... 69 4.2.6 Meeting the needs of both L1 and L2 pupils during higher primary grades and secondary school .................................................................... 70 4.3 Introducing and developing literacy skills in two languages ................................ 72 4.3.1 Literacy in the Scottish school curriculum .................................................. 73 4.3.2 Literacy attainment in current GME provision ............................................ 74 4.3.3 When is it best to introduce pupils to literacy in two languages? ............... 76 4.3.4 Teaching biliteracy across the curriculum .................................................. 77 4.3.5 Building upon pupils‟ home and community literacy practices ................... 77 4.3.6 The importance of vocabulary ................................................................... 79 5.0 Conclusions and recommendations for the further development of Gaelic-medium education in Scotland ............................................................... 81 5.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 81 5.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 84 References ................................................................................................................... 86 4 Comparison of Language Models for Pupils 2012 Executive Summary Project aim 1. The aim of this Bòrd na Gàidhlig funded project has been to review the literature and guidance on good practice in the immersion classroom teaching and learning of minority languages, from pre-school to high school, both internationally and in Scotland, such as would be applicable to the promotion of Scots Gaelic in Scotland. 2. The full report presents, for comparison with Gaelic medium education as it has developed hitherto in Scotland, a synopsis of the immersion models in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Hawai‟i, Canada and the United States. In the European context, the report focuses upon the bilingual education models in Wales, Ireland, Catalonia and The Basque Autonomous Community. It also draws upon the research literature more widely to address each of the issues identified in the original research brief. Comparing ‘models’ of immersion education ‘Second language’ immersion 3. In Canada, early immersion usually involves 100% French for 4-5 year olds in Kindergarten and 5-7 year olds in grade 1. One period of English language arts is introduced in grade 2 (at age 6-8), grade 3 (age 7-9) or sometimes as late as grade 4 when children are 8-10 years old. By grade 5 (age 9-11) and grade 6 (age 10 -12) the instructional time is divided equally between the two languages and the amount of instructional time through French usually declines to about 40% in grade 7 (age 11-13), grade 8 (age 12-14) and grade 9 (age 13-15) with further reduction at the high school level as a result of a greater variety of course offerings in English than in French. French immersion programmes in Canada are fully bilingual in as much as the teaching staff are all bilingual, both French and English are used as the languages of instruction in a structured and organised manner and they aim to develop fully bilingual and biliterate pupils. The pupils in French „second language immersion‟ are L2 learners of the target immersion language and classes are therefore more homogeneous than the other minority language contexts reviewed. 5 Comparison of Language Models for Pupils 2012 4. The reviews of the Canadian model and other models of „second language‟ immersion internationally have identified the following three major positive outcomes: 1. Immersion students surpass mainstream students in their acquisition of a second language. 2. After approximately six years of schooling, immersion students have caught up and, in the case of early total immersion pupils, go on to exceed the first language attainment of their monolingual peers. 3. Early total immersion pupils gain a second language without any negative effect upon their performance in their other curriculum subjects. Immersion revitalization bilingual education Māori 5. It is a feature of Māori-medium education that „full immersion‟ (Level 1: 81% - 100% Māori) is the main form of Māori-medium provision. Furthermore, the majority of Level 1 full immersion programmes exist as separate, whole-school Kura Kaupapa Māori (rather than units or streams in English-medium schools). Research on Māori-medium education confirm the general findings of immersion education elsewhere, that it is the full immersion (81% - 100%) programmes that are the most successful and that partial programmes which teach more than 51% - 80% (Level 2) in the target language can also have positive results. Consequently, it is argued that Māori-medium education be concentrated in the Level 1 and Level 2 forms of provision rather than continuing to expand provision generally with lower Level 3 (31 – 50% Māori) and Level 4 (12 – 30% Māori) of bilingual education. (Immersion in) Developmental