1
E. Thürmann, 09/02/2016
THE ROLE OF LANGUAGES IN LEARNING AND TEACHING SCHOOL SUBJECTS
1. Why language matters – and which kind of language is at stake?
It is fascinating to see how in recent years educational experts around the globe have started to
focus on the language dimension when it comes for schools to meet the demands of modern
knowledge societies. Empirical results from large-scale international comparative studies (e.g. PISA,
PIRLS, TIMSS) have demonstrated beyond doubt that in many countries educational systems fall
short of providing learning opportunities for all students to acquire, share and use knowledge for
their own future well-being and for the ability to participate in public life. Especially students who
come from families with a migrant and/or below average educational background are often found to
lack opportunities for attaining the PISA competence level 2 in reading comprehension, Sciences and
/ or Mathematics which is considered to be a conditio sine qua non for successful vocational
training, competing on the labour market, and active participation in public life.
In the past, in many national contexts, school teachers based their daily routines on three
“assumptions of normality”: (a) society wants only a smaller proportion of a student cohort to qualify
for professional (academic) careers, (b) students are competent native speakers of the dominant
language of schooling, and (c) they are used to the school´s particular patterns of language use since
in their families reading and writing is a major concern. Based on these three points of departure
schools delegated responsibility for language development to the specialists, i.e. teachers of
language (L1) as a subject and to teachers of classical and modern languages (L2). The teaching of
other subjects, however, focussed on subject-specific content and expected students to be able to
face the linguistic challenges of subject teaching – if not, they simply did not qualify for academic
advancement. Although this pedagogic “division of language labour” in school education is outdated
because of various demographic and socio-cultural reasons, it has become a habitus in Bourdieu´s
meaning of the term (cf. Gogolin 1994) and is still highly influential concerning deep rooted daily
content1 teaching routines. On the other hand, experts have come to the conclusion that mastering
the language of schooling is a key to successful learning across the curriculum and the most reliable
track to school success and elevated socio-economic status after graduating from school. They have
also made it quite clear that school is a discourse community with its own ways and means to use
language as a medium or tool for making meaning, i.e. teaching and learning content across the
curriculum. Thus, one of the major aims of the Council of Europe´s project “Languages in Education,
Languages for Education” is to devise and support strategies and actions to battle the outdated
Taylorism of language education in our school systems to such an extent that language awareness
becomes a matter of course in content teaching across the curriculum. Following the concern of
experts worldwide for the specific patterns of language use in school education, the leading question
for this conference is “What have we done so far and what can we do in the near future to support
1
In this presentation, “content” as in “content teaching” is used as a short formula referring to declarative as
well as procedural knowledge taught and learnt in so-called non-language subjects (German: Sachfächer).
2
schools in developing and implementing whole-school policies of inclusive academic2 language
education?”
However, things get rather complicated when we take a closer look at the language patterns which
are considered characteristic of teaching and learning in formal education. What exactly is academic
language? What are the elements, patterns, strategies and rules for language use in classroom
interaction, textbooks, and exams? And – even more important and crucial – how can we actively
help so-called vulnerable groups to cope with this particular register?
To understand the cognitive and language challenges of modern competence-based school education
let´s have a closer look at an example from the Geography classroom. Students are asked to take up
the role of a meteorological expert and to explain on a mock radio interview how hurricanes build
up, what makes them so strong and what happens inside and outside a hurricane. They are supposed
to do this on the basis of the two diagrams below and results from their own web quests.
http://www.weatherwizkids.com/Hurricane_fo
rmation.gif
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/co
ntent/138612main_okelley_graph_lg.jpg
First, students have to understand the assignment, they must decode information from verbal as well
as visual forms of representation including the technical terms of the discipline (e.g. “stratosphere”,
“evaporation”), they have to apply higher order thinking skills such as “hypothesise” and “conclude”
in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of the hurricane mechanisms, then consider the type
(genre) of the target text (radio interview) and what potential listeners might (want to) know about
hurricanes, and, finally, come up with coherent meaningful and media-adequate oral speech. What a
challenge – especially for those students who are not exposed to such language and thought patterns
at home and among their friends.
The example might show that the functions of language are manifold. In the context of teaching
foreign and second languages we are used to consider language as a medium for everyday and often
fairly trivial communicative activities. We are also well aware of its function for retrieving
information from all sorts of verbal sources. However, in the context of teaching and learning
content in subject areas such as Mathematics, History, Social Sciences, Physics and even Art and
Music there are more reasons why language matters:
2
In this presentation, the term “academic” as in “academic language” refers to the context of schools with an
emphasis on the secondary level (10/11 – 15 year old students), i.e. a period in education with a broad range of
different subjects.
3

Language as a constituent component of higher-order thinking skills and a necessary
precondition for successful content learning: There is little doubt that successful learning in most
school subjects strongly depends on the availability of higher-order thinking skills. To
demonstrate how thinking skills are linked to language, I shall take advantage of a poster a
Canadian school library technician (“Enokson”) developed for the English language arts and social
studies departments (humanities) to use in their classroom, as well as in the library:
4
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vblibrary/4576825411/sizes/l/in/pool-27724923@N00/
This example clearly shows how the language side of learning activities relate to cognitive
operations and skills. Also a closer look at the highly influential Anderson/Krathwohl (2001)
update of Bloom´s taxonomy confirms the symbiosis of verbal and cognitive activities for
teaching and learning in formal education. They are two sides of the same medal – you cannot
have content without language and vice versa.


Language as a tool for making meaning: Many of the approaches to the language dimension of
content teaching are based on social-constructivist concepts of learning and the original ideas of
the developmental psychologists Vygotsky and Bruner. Vygotsky claimed that young children
develop higher order thinking skills through cultural mediation and interpersonal communication
with more knowledgeable adults or peers, which means that the development of mental
concepts and the appropriation of procedural knowledge depend on social interaction and verbal
exchange. Thus, without adequate language means and strategies which are geared to formal
education learners cannot be expected to take advantage of opportunities schools normally
offer.
Language as a filter for assessing learning outcomes: Formal assessment procedures in school
subjects heavily rely on open- or half-open-formatted tasks and on oral or written presentations
by the student how s/he has solved the task. What makes matters even more complicated is the
fact that in high stake assessment the academic register determines the characteristics of the
verbal filter. In plain words: If students do not have an age-adequate command of subject
literacy they have no chance to meet the (very often) implicit expectations by the teacher as a
subject specialist who claims to be primarily concerned with content. If one would choose to
reduce the language load of assessment tasks by resorting to closed-formatted items such as
multiple-choice, matching or fill-in formats, one would seriously delay the development of
subject literacy.
So, language really does matter – not only in the language classroom, but across the whole
curriculum. This should lead us back to the question: What exactly is academic language, and how
can we approach it in content teaching?
On a relatively high level of abstractness experts seem to agree how academic language use can be
conceptualised by a set of features such as
distanced – decontextualised – dispassionate – exact – objective – complex – highly
structured – complete – unambiguous – explicit.
amounting to a way of language use which we normally find in content-focussed writing. This style of
projecting ideas into words and texts is also expected by the academic discourse community for oral
classroom communication especially when learning results are presented, discussed and
achievement is being assessed.
Below this level consensus on a definition what academic language is by identifying elements and
rules of language use which are altogether different from colloquial patterns has not been reached –
and personally I doubt that such an approach is feasible. However, in order to raise awareness
among educators of the distinguishing features of conversational and academic use of a standard
language it is imperative to have a closer look at the dimensions which have to be accounted for
5
when setting the academic apart from the conversational register. A text like this might be presented
to students in the Social Studies classroom at the end of compulsory education:
The federal debt exploded to an incomprehensible $12.1 trillion, and the nation
continues on its path to becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the People’s Republic of
China. Yet lawmakers can’t even agree on a modest proposal to form an independent
debt commission and then vote on its recommendations. The debt commission is
expected to be voted down Tuesday morning, as foes on the far left and the far right
unite to form a status quo supermajority. Prospects have become so bleak that a couple
of retired congressional leaders got together Monday morning in hopes of shaming their
former colleagues into action.
[Washington Post, January 26, 2010, p. A-2, quoted from
http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/9780205627615/downloads/7368_Siop_Ch0
1_pp001-023.pdf ]
Obviously, the lexico-grammatical dimension immediately attracts attention to the technical terms
(e.g. “to be voted down”, “debt commission”, “status quo supermajority”) and to words and
constructions of standard language less frequently used (e.g. “shaming into action”, “wholly owned
subsidiary”), “yet …”, “as” …). Lists of lexical surface features which are characteristic of academic
language use do exist for quite a number of languages and there are also examples for functional
“grammars in context” for content-based learning (cf. for example Margarita Rigal Aragón and
Ricardo Marín Ruiz). However, a pedagogical approach to academic language competences by
linguistic surface features will not guarantee a deeper comprehension of the above quote from the
Washington Post. Also the discourse dimension and the textual level have to be covered by making
students aware of the purpose of the text, of contextual factors, of coherence and cohesion, the
development of ideas, the textual
lexicogrammatical
structures (e.g. paragraphs!) etc.. The
dimension
discourse
dimension
(purpose,
development of ideas) is closely related
socioto the cognitive dimension with its
discourse
psychological
dimension
operations and thinking skills on various
dimension
levels. Experts like Uribe (2008) have
added two more dimensions which seem
to be highly relevant for pedagogical
approaches to academic language use in
cognitive
dimension
the content classroom. The socio-cultural
socio-cultural
dimension
dimension is important for students to
understand and critically deal with school
subject texts as communities of practices or discourse communities which have agreed on specific
text types or genres and conventions concerning their formats and patterns of language use. The
socio-psychological dimension is concerned with the language user, his identity and membership of
a social group and its values, norms, beliefs, attitudes and habits – all of them affecting critical
language awareness and the disposition to adopt new verbal habits and communicative strategies.
Because of this multidimensional complexity it is a highly challenging task for educators to support
academic language competences and for decision-makers to envisage educational reforms for
curriculum development, teacher training and management of school development.
6
2. Academic literacy: a closer look at what happens in content classrooms
There are many misconceptions which often make consensus on educational priorities for inclusive
academic language education difficult:




All teaching and learning in content classrooms is or should be mediated through academic
language: No, definitely not. Classroom language use is a blend of language varieties. And there
are good reasons for it, too. According to Bailey & Heritage (2008) and Scarcella (2008) it is
helpful to distinguish four different patterns of language use or classroom varieties. They call
them
o Basic colloquial language (BCL)
o School Navigational Language (SNL)
o Curriculum Content Language (CCL)
o Essential Academic Language (EAL).
All of them serve different purposes: e.g. making students feel at ease (= BCL), organising work (=
SNL), calling on subject-specific concepts and procedures in an unambiguous manner (= CCL),
supporting the development and exchange of learning experiences and ideas according to the
expectations of the discourse community of school teachers (= EAL).
Teachers should systematically build up stocks of academic language elements (e.g. use of
abstract nouns, expanded nominal constructions, highly complex syntactic structures) and coach
students to use them appropriately: Again, no. Stockpiling of such elements for later demand
does not lead to a sustainable academic discourse competence. Students should be confronted
with strategies and language elements at a point of need for making meaning in the content
classroom through modelling, scaffolding or apprenticeship.
If schools set up standards for teaching academic language, such standards should be equally
applied to both, to comprehension (listening and reading) and to production (oral, written): This
would not be the fairway to academic literacy. Receptive skills are a definite priority. In content
teaching authentic texts which are not produced for didactic purposes have significant value.
They are a motivating challenge for the students. On the other hand, they may contain linguistic
obstacles (technical terms and set phrases, complex sentence structures, intricate strategies of
reasoning). One of the most important aims of inclusive academic language teaching is to
familiarise students with techniques and strategies to “attack” such texts, unwrap them for
meaning, and consider them as a potential source for new patterns of subject-specific language
use.
If everything goes well, students have acquired academic language competence by the end of
compulsory education or before they enter university: Again a serious misconception. The process
of developing academic competences transcends formal education. It is a never ending process
since discourse patterns and representational forms in the media are subject to continual
change. Thus, it makes little sense to pile up language knowledge. A more effective and
sustainable way of inclusive academic language teaching is to develop the students´ awareness
and abilities to focus their attention on how language is being used in social contexts for which
purposes and to reflect on language diversity and the advantages of code switching.
Furthermore, there are at least five aspects of content teaching routines which are serious obstacles
to the development of academic discourse competence:
7





In primary and lower secondary education, by far most of the teaching and learning process is of
oral nature. If writing plays a role at all, it rarely is challenging and thought provoking: in most
cases it amounts to copying notes from the board, taking notes, filling gaps, answering questions
and the like. In a random sample of 20 content lessons, I found that writing activities take up less
than 10% of teaching time. In these cases, students clearly have not enough opportunities to
reflect on the appropriateness of their language and to revise their texts with the help of peers
or the teacher.
Oral interaction is dominated by so-called IRF-cycles – initiation by the teacher through (closed
formatted) questions and impulses followed by a student reaction frequently by body language,
single word answers or short phrases and concluded by the teacher´s confirmation or feedback.
These IRF-patterns allow for teacher control, but they are highly inefficient for the development
of meaningful and coherent discourse.
Teachers´ feedback is focussed on content and only very rarely on language performance.
There is little awareness-raising of and reflection on subject-specific genres as well as basic
communicative-cognitive functions such as defining, describing, explaining, reasoning,
evaluating, etc., since in many educational systems curricular documents for content teaching do
not explicitly touch on the language dimension and do not define which (academic) language
learning objectives are supposed to be achieved.
Micro- or soft language scaffolding techniques (e.g. prompting, rephrasing) can be observed. But
designed-in or systemic scaffolding of academic language use is more an exception than a rule.
By designed-in scaffolding (e.g. Hammond 2001) is meant that in lesson planning language
support is aligned to specific content target.
In short, deep routed classroom routines, activities and interaction patterns in content teaching
ought to undergo a critical revision to make them more language sensitive as a major contribution to
the development of academic discourse competence and to school success of marginalised student
groups.
3. A more or less global view on what has already been achieved
Whenever educational systems consider focussing school reform on the language dimension across
the curriculum for reasons of equity and the right of all students to quality education, they can resort
to research work, concepts, and materials from institutions around the world. There is no need to
start from zero. A bird´s eye glance at some of the more prominent projects and approaches on
inclusive academic language teaching might help us to discover options for national or regional
initiatives. There is not enough time for this introductory presentation to go into the technical
details of such projects and initiatives, but at least some of their influential features will be called
upon and highlighted.

Adapting the concept of literacy to the demands of modern knowledge societies: On a global
scale, we witness a continual evolution of the term “literacy” which in former times was
restricted to the technical skills of reading and writing. Nowadays it comprises a complex set of
abilities to understand and use the dominant symbolic systems of a culture for personal and
community development: The UNESCO (2004), for example, defines literacy as the "ability to
identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written
materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling
individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate
fully in their community and wider society." The Council of Europe´s project on “Languages in
8
Education, Languages for Education” is compatible with this definition, but takes it a step further
or let us say further down to the practicalities of teaching and learning in the content classroom.
In the 2012, on occasion of the Council of Europe´s seminar on subject literacies, Helmut Vollmer
(http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/SemLangScol12_Prog_Texts_EN.asp#TopOfPage)
summarised what is implied by the term “subject literacy” when applied to a specific discipline or
content area. It means that students are able
o to comprehend and fully understand the meaning of an utterance, a passage, a text
o to negotiate meaning and communicate knowledge
o to reflect on the learning process and the learning outcomes
o to transfer information from one representational system to another (e.g. “translating” facts
from a topographic map into a coherent spoken expository text)
o to partake in socio-scientific discourse
o to make use of generalisable knowledge and skills for solving problems and tasks in private
and public life beyond the context of formal education.

Maintaining educational standards in mainstream education with targeted language support
across the curriculum for vulnerable groups: We should be aware of general tendencies in
Canada and the USA of not “dumbing down the curriculum” anymore and separating vulnerable
groups from their more successful peers, but maintaining academic standards for all with the
help of cautious “sheltering” and scaffolding strategies in mainstream education. We might learn
from programmes such as SIOP® = Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (Echevarria / Vogt
& Short 2008), CALLA = Accelerating Academic Achievement for English Learners (Chamot / Uhl &
O´Malley 1994) and others like the Word Generation approach (Strategic Education Research
Partnership 2011). We should also take advantage of the wealth of basic research on the topic of
“academic English” (cf. Anstrom et al. (2010) and the attempts to implement such expertise to
the practicalities of the content classroom (e.g. Schleppegrell 2004, Zwiers 2008). Experts (Short,
Fitzsimmons 2007) in the USA have also identified challenges and solutions to acquiring academic
literacy of adolescents as a new target group, intensified attempts to link language standards to
content standards on a very practical online platform, and discussed standards of academic
English for entering colleges and universities.
From countries like Australia, New Zealand and many other countries in East Asia we can learn
how to adapt pedagogies to contextual factors such as linguistic and cultural diversity among
students, large quota of (English) language learners and socio-economical demands (e.g.
inclusion, social cohesion, high level of literacy and academic standards). In these countries,
educational authorities have acknowledged the need for language support not only of
newcomers to their educational system with little or no English, but also of those students of a
migrant background who are born and raised e.g. in Australia and who have a fluent command of
informal English, but are not exposed to such language patterns in their families which are
normally used for learning and teaching purposes in schools. These countries have opted for a
systemic-functional or functional semiotic approach to language education instead of more
traditional approaches (e.g. lexico-grammatical, systemic linguistic approaches) through
curriculum development and teacher training. They have also institutionalised the genre-based
curriculum cycle (e.g. Hyland 2002) and familiarised schools with scaffolding techniques (e.g.
Hammond 2001).
9

Curriculum development and reference systems for academic language competences: We should
respect and value what so far has been accomplished by the Council of Europe in the project
“Languages in Education, Languages for Education”. The project has initiated and/or supported
successful attempts to introduce the language dimension to subject-specific curricula through
defining concepts, points of reference, structured frames, descriptions and descriptors for
academic language competences. Instead of a unified and authoritative approach as taken for
the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment,
the Council´s platform offers options of framework structures/dimensions as well as procedures
how to arrive of practical descriptors for making academic language learning objectives
transparent, e.g.:
Basic cognitive-communicative strategies and discourse functions
Pupils can use appropriate linguistic strategies and tools to process information,
experience, and ideas applying basic discourse functions.
This entails mastering the following cognitive and linguistic skills in particular:
Naming, defining

appropriately labelling living things, objects, processes, events, topics and
viewpoints

assessing and specifying their specific characteristics

Describing, presenting

making relatively concise and consistent oral contributions without excessive use of
body language or gestures so that listeners can understand without having to ask
for clarification

describing living things, objects, processes, events, topics or viewpoints related to
the specific subject area through features related to their appearance or function,
whether directly observable or emerging as the result of experiments
In the course of the Council´s project it became evident that there are complementary strategies
to coordinate the academic language objectives across the curriculum: top-down from a general
common frame of reference applied to the level of the individual school subject as practiced for
example in Norway and North Rhine Westphalia or bottom-up from the particular language
demands of individual subjects or subject areas to a coordinated cross-curricular framework.
Member states are invited to consult and use such material in support of their educational
policies according to their needs, resources and educational culture. Since there are several
presentations scheduled for this conference on integrating the language dimension into content
teaching, there is no need for me to go into details any further. Those member states which look
for options may also study the Swiss HarmoS (EDK 2011) project or analyse how language
standards are linked to content standards on the website of The George Washington University
Center for Equity & Excellence in Education (GW-CEEE).

Integrating the language dimension into the training of non-language specialists: The European
Commission, for example, supported a project on a “European Core Curriculum for
Mainstreamed Second Language – Teacher Education”, which is an instrument for teacher pre-
10
and in-service training to cope with linguistic diversity of their students. The preamble points out
that social cohesion is indeed an essential part of a policy package towards a vibrant knowledge
economy. Referring to the OECD publication No More Failures: Ten Steps to Equity in Education
(Fiel/Kuczera/Pont 2007) it is argued that segregating students into different types of school,
tracks or streams can harm the learning of vulnerable groups in a way that institutionalises
unfairness and erodes human rights. These considerations led the EUCIM-TE consortium to
support language across the curriculum. The European Core Curriculum moves from a
‘compartmentalised’ language learning for second or additional language learners to an ‘inclusive
education’ in which second language education is seen as an integral part of a generalised and
common curriculum process, i.e. mainstreamed second language education. The EUCIM-TE
consortium explicitly refers to similar and successful approaches in Australia and North America
(Canada) as well as to the Council of Europe´s endeavours to promote language education across
the curriculum. The EUCIM-TE´s conceptual framework has been adapted on a national level by
North Rhine Westphalia (Brandenburger / Bainski / Hochherz / Roth ) where the language
dimension is a compulsory element of the pre-service training of all teachers, also for the nonlanguage specialists.

Classroom development and language sensitive content teaching: For this area the leading
question is: “How can content teachers provide language support and contribute to the
development of subject literacy without lowering content standards?” Attempts to answer this
question have led to sets of criteria for inclusive language sensitive content teaching for example
in Germany (Thürmann / Vollmer 2013; RAA) and Austria (Dorner / Helten-Pacher / Langer /
Schmölzer-Eibinger (2013). These sets of criteria for “language sensitive” content teaching are
already part and parcel in the training of experienced educators to become literacy coaches as
change agents for those schools which intend to work along the lines of a whole-school language
learning policy. Such programmes have extensively been set up in the US, where training
modules and quality criteria for the training of academic literacy coaches can be found (e.g.
Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse; Sturtevant; Wren / Reed 2005).
4. Crystal ball gazing: Priorities for future action
Although there is a reliable basis of experience, research and practical tools concerning the language
dimension in content teaching being offered on the Council of Europe´s website, a lot remains to be
done on various levels of the educational system so that students across Europe – and not only those
who are considered to be vulnerable or - can take advantage and fully develop multiple subject
literacies.


On a supra level (Council of Europe) future developmental work could continue to focus on
framework structures for subject literacy which can be offered to national or regional curriculum
agencies as a tools for integrating the language dimension into subject-specific curricula.
Effective support for curriculum reform would also imply an offer of possible (a) general
descriptors for relevant framework dimensions (e.g. genres, cognitive-language functions,
available language and textual means), (b) descriptors for the language dimension in particular
subject areas (e.g. Science, Social Studies and History, Art) – both kinds of descriptors in the
shape of can-do statements.
On a macro level, ministries, national / regional / local authorities update and enrich curricular
documents across the whole range of content areas by taking advantage of the curricular tools
11


offered by the Council of Europe. They could also consider updating and enriching teachers´
professional profiles accordingly through teacher education. There is also a need for qualified
change agents in the sense of “literacy coaches” who can help individual schools to adapt their
language education policies and practice to specific contextual needs. Those specialists need to
be trained.
On meso- and micro-levels, individual schools and their staff could try to reach consensus setting
up a school-based language development plan which would result in a vertically (across grades)
and horizontally (across subjects) coordinated language education policy for the alignment of
content and language standards. Additionally they could practice a critical-friends-approach to
classroom observation using a set of criteria for language-sensitive subject teaching and learning.
Such checklists already exist….
On a nano-level, individual learners should consider school as a sort of apprenticeship adopting
attitudes and acquire skills to examine very closely which strategies, linguistic and textual means
are used for which purposes, become aware of different language registers and practice code
switching whenever it seems functional and appropriate.
References
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R. (eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York:
Longman.
Anstrom, K. et al. (2010). A Review of the Literature on Academic English: Implications for K-12
English Language Learners. The George Washington University Center for Equity and
Excellence in Education. www.ceee.gwu.edu.
Aragón, Margarita Rigal, Ricardo Marín Ruiz (o.J.). English grammar in context for academic and
pro-fessional purposes.
http://www.uclm.es/ab/humanidades/profesores/descarga/margarita/EnglishGrammar.
pdf
Bailey, A. L., & Butler, F. A. (2007). A conceptual framework of academic English language for
broad application to education. In: A. L. Bailey (Ed.). The language demands of school:
Putting academic English to the test. New Haven: Yale University Press. 68-102.
Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, H. M. (2008). Formative assessment for literacy, grades K-6: Building
reading and academic language skills across the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Brandenburger, A., Bainski, Ch., Hochherz,W., Roth, H.-J. National Adaptation of the European
Core Curriculum for Inclusive Academic Language Teaching North Rhine Westphalia
(NRW), Germany. Adaption des europäischen Kerncurriculums für inklusive Förderung
der Bildungssprache Nordrhein-Westfalen (NRW). http://www.eucimte.eu/data/eso27/File/Material/NRW.%20Adaptation.pdf.
Chamot, A., O´Malley, M.J. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic
Language Learning Approach. White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Chamot, A. , O´Malley, M.J. (1994). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A
bridge to the mainstream. In: TESOL Quarterly 21/2. 227-249..
Council of Europe (ed.) (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: CUP.
12
Dorner, M., Helten-Pacher, M.-R., Langer, E. & Schmölzer-Eibinger, S. (2013). Handbuch
Sprachförderung im Fachunterricht in sprachlich heterogenen Klassen. Stuttgart: Klett.
EDK (2011). Grundkompetenzen für dIe Schulsprache. Nationale Bildungsstandards. Frei gegeben
von der EDK-Plenarversammlung am 16. Juni 2011.
http://edudoc.ch/record/96791/files/grundkomp_schulsprache_d.pdf.
EUCIM-TE. European Core Curriculum for Inclusive Academic Language Teaching (IALT).
http://www.eucim-te.eu/32340.
Field, S., Kuczera, M. & Pont, B. (2007). No More Failures – Ten Steps to Equity in Education. Paris:
OECD.
George Washintong University, Center for Equity and Excellence in Education. Academic
Language Analysis Tool. http://ceee.gwu.edu/node/123.
Gogolin, Ingrid (1994). Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Münster: Waxmann.
Echevarria, Jana, MaryEllen Vogt, Deborah J. Short (2008). Making Content Comprehensible for
English Learners: The SIOP Model. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hammond, J. (ed.) (2001). Scaffolding. Teaching and Learning in Language and Literacy
Education. Newtown, Austr.: PETA.
Hyland, Ken (2002). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. In: Journal of Second
Language Writing. 12/1. 17-29.
Regionale Arbeitsstellen zur Förderung von Kindern und Jugendlichen aus Zuwandererfamilien
(RAA)(Hrsg.) (o.J.). Checkliste zur Durchgängigen Sprachbildung und interkulturellen
inklusiven Schulentwicklung. Essen: RAA.
Scarcella, R. (2004). Academic English: A conceptual framework.
http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/6pd082d4
Schleppegrell, Mary J. (2004). The Language of Schooling. A Functional Linguistics Perspective.
Mahwan N.J., London (Lawrence Erlbaum P.).
Short, D., Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the Work. Challenges and Solutions to Acquiring
Language and Academic Literacy for Adolescent English Language Learners. A Report to
Carnegie Corporationn of New York. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Strategic Education Research Partnership (2011). Word generation.
http://wg.serpmedia.org/index.html
Sturtevant, E. A Key to Improving Teaching and Learning in Secondary Schools: The literacy
coach. Alliance for Excellent Education.
http://www.carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/LiteracyCoach.pdf
Thürmann, Eike, Vollmer, Helmut J. (2013). Schulsprache und Sprachsensibler Fachunterricht –
Eine Checkliste mit Erläuterungen. In: Röhner, Charlotte, Hövelbrinks, Britta (Hrsg.).
Fachbezogene Sprachförderung in Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Weinheim, Basel: Juventa.
212-233.
UNESCO (2004). "The Plurality of Literacy and its implications for Policies and Programs".
UNESCO Education Sector Position Paper: 13.
Uribe, D. (2008). Characteristics of Academic English in The ESL Classroom. In: The Internet TESL
Journal, Vol. XIV, No. 3, March 2008. http://iteslj.org/.
13
Wren, S. & Reed, D. (2005). Literacy coaches roles and responsibilities. In: SEDL Letter, XVll.
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-letter/v17n01/literacy-coaches.html.
Zwiers, J. (2008). Building Academic Language. Essential Practices for Content Classrooms. San
Francisco: John Wiley.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vblibrary/4576825411/sizes/o/in/pool-27724923@N00/
Also a closer look at the highly influential Anderson/Krathwohl (2001) taxonomy confirms the
symbiosis of verbal and cognitive activities for teaching and learning in formal education.
They are sides of the same medal – you cannot have content without language and vice
versa.
14