Intergovernmental Conference
on
Quality and inclusion in education:
the unique role of languages
Strasbourg, 18-19 September 2013
Palais de l’Europe, Room 9
LANGUAGE COMPETENCES ACROSS THE CURRICULUM:
THE CASE OF NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA (GERMANY)
Helmut Vollmer
Language Policy Unit
Education Department
DG II – Directorate General of Democracy
Council of Europe, Strasbourg
www.coe.int/lang
Platform of Resources and References for Plurilingual and Intercultural Education
www.coe.int/lang-platform
JULY 2013
LANGUAGE COMPETENCES ACROSS THE CURRICULUM:
THE CASE OF NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA (GERMANY)
(NOTE: THE FOLLOWING CONTRIBUTION REFERS TO THE DOCUMENT “A FRAMEWORK OF LANGUAGE
COMPETENCES ACROSS THE CURRICULUM“ FOR NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA (THÜRMANN/VOLLMER 2011)
1. The wider context – OECD and the Council of Europe
Studies of the OECD like PISA 2003 and 2006 have shown again and again a strong relationship
between the language students speak at home and their performance in mathematics and/or other
subject areas like science and reading. For Germany, a similar relationship exists between the socioeconomic status of parents, their level of education and the school achievements of the children. In
countries like these, so the advice of the OECD, strengthening targeted language support has to be
considered. This urgent demand for targeted language support is confirmed by the Council of
Europe´s (CoE) large international project “Languages in Education – Languages for Education” (2009,
2011). However, the CoE`s perspective is not limited to language support in the migrant students´ L2
as the dominant language of schooling. Instead the CoE´s attention is focused on both - the
plurilingual competences of students with a migrant background and the specific language register
normally used in formal education. There is strong evidence that targeting support at the specifics of
this register in language education across the curriculum (i.e. in all language subjects including L1 as
home or heritage languages and also in non-language subjects) will lead to a considerable
enhancement of academic achievement. A number of suggestions how to reach this goal have been
made within the sub-project of the CoE entitled “Linguistic and educational integration of children
and adolescents from migrant backgrounds” (2010), especially in Thürmann, Vollmer & Pieper
(2010); see also the results of the 2012 specialised intergovernmental seminar1 on “Meeting the
Challenge of Multilingual Classrooms”).
Until recently, German school authorities allocated additional resources to schools for the support of
migrant students predominantly according to demographic data. The number/proportion of
immigrant students was the crucial criterion for assigning additional teaching staff. Besides special
programmes in L2 for newly arrived students, these resources were spent in an across-the-board
fashion and mainly used for reducing the size of mainstream classes. This rather expensive approach
may have made it easier for teachers to shoulder the burden of teaching, but – as can be safely said –
it did not prove to be very effective for the advancement of underachieving students, since it did not
take into account individual language biographies and individual needs for support in the language(s)
of education.
2. Projects in North Rhine-Westphalia: Supporting the language(s) of schooling
North Rhine-Westphalia, the largest of the 16 German Lander (with 18 Mio. inhabitants and
approximately one third of 5 year-olds from immigrant backgrounds), has initiated a number of
projects which acknowledge the crucial function of the school language(s) for academic achievement
and which take advantage of the preliminary results of the Council of Europe´s work. In particular,
the following projects could be mentioned (for more details see Thürmann/Vollmer 2011, 3-6):
a) Large-scale screening of L2-competences at the pre-school level
b) Mandatory language support courses at pre-school level
c) Plurilingual competences and native language tuition: North Rhine-Westphalia continues to offer
additional language maintenance courses on the level of primary and lower secondary education
in order to expand immigrant students´ individual plurilingual profiles.
1
See www.coe.int/lang - Section Events (2012)
1
d) Initial teacher training: Recently, North Rhine-Westphalia has reformed initial teacher training
programmes according to the standards of the Bologna process. This reform also implies the
requirement that all teachers – including the non-language specialists – have to successfully
complete a mandatory training module which focuses on individual learning needs of immigrant
students in the dominant language of schooling. Thus, future teachers of subjects like
mathematics, history, chemistry etc. will become more aware of the challenges and chances of
plurilingualism, they will know basic strategies to support the acquisition of a second language
through non-language subjects as well as understand the necessity of subject-specific scaffolds
for classroom communication and cognition.
e) Language Support/Literacy Coaches
Training advisors for whole-school language learning support programmes: Many schools with an
above-average proportion of vulnerable learners (especially in the lower-ability range, so-called
Hauptschulen) lack in expertise how to manage change, develop adequate cross-curricular
programmes for language support and for expanding individual plurilingual student profiles – and
thus reducing barriers to academic success. Meanwhile, more than 100 senior teachers have
completed a comprehensive training as advisors for schools which are ready to establish their
own whole-school language learning programmes and policies. Additionally, up to 200 teachers
were similarly trained by the Regional Agencies for the support of children from migrant families
(RAA 2012), now “Community Integration Centres”. In this way, a remarkable professional
potential for language issues has been built up in NRW.
These highly desirable and indispensable programmes for inclusive education may already be
considered a conceptually sound multilingual and cross-curricular approach to language pedagogy,
but they are still rather eclectic. The project under e) seems to be more promising, but schools are
hesitant to invite those Language Support Coaches on a larger scale as yet. The most promising
initiative by the educational authorities in NRW which might lead to a more coherent languagefocused approach for school- and classroom development as well as for teacher training is the one
presented here.
3. A cross-curricular framework for literacy education in the dominant language of schooling
The Ministry of Education of NRW has recently commissioned a curriculum reform for schools with a
high intake of lower ability learners and students at risk (“Hauptschule” as the lowest of the three
track systems). In preparatory discussions, the need for a comprehensive and coherent crosscurricular language support policy became quite evident. The view was shared that individual schools
as a whole (and not only departments for “language as a subject”) are responsible for language
education and language support, which means that all subjects and subject areas should make their
specific contributions to a coherent language support programme. Accordingly, Eike Thürmann and
Helmut Vollmer were asked to conceptualise an inventory of language elements, skills, strategies and
competences for the end of compulsory schooling at the age of 15/16 (in Germany called “Mittlerer
Schulabschluss”) which are relevant for the continuation of formal academic education and/or
qualified vocational training. Thus they outlined such a coherent and transparent frame of reference
for language competences in (German as) the dominant language of schooling for NRW, without
which it would not be possible for subject specialists to specify cognitive and communicative
competences and their specific contribution to a coherent cross-curricular language support
programme.
The resulting document with a list of language elements, skills, strategies and competences is
available as a separate paper2 (see Thürmann & Vollmer 2011, 9-14).
2
A framework of language competences across the curriculum: language(s) in and for inclusive education in
Northrhine-westfalia (Germany), Eike Thürmann, Helmut Vollmer. See: : Platform of Resources and References
for Plurilingual and Intercultural Education: www.coe.int/lang-platform (Box ‘Languages of Schooling’)
2
This frame of reference is based on an extensive empirical analysis of language requirements as
specified or indicated
 in current curricular documents from five different German Lander for various school subjects
in primary and lower secondary education
 in textbooks and other academic materials
 in relevant policy documents (language requirements for the vocational training of school
leavers (“Ausbildungsreife”) agreed upon by trade unions, the federation of employers and
government officials in a document called “National Alliance for Vocational Training and
qualified trainees” (Bundesagentur für Arbeit 2008).
 in pertinent pedagogical publications and memoranda by professional bodies (e.g. by the
Association for Fachdidaktik 2009).
This repertoire of linguistic competences for formal school education can be considered as minimal
rights or entitlements of each and every learner to successful content learning across the curriculum.
At the same time it can be seen as a checklist of general academic language competences to be
acquired by the end of compulsory schooling. The frame was proposed to the educational authorities
of NRW as a resource tool for curriculum as well as school and classroom development. It was then
introduced into the curriculum development process for lower secondary schools (lower ability
stream, Hauptschule) and handed over to specialist groups for a range of school subjects or subject
areas (like sciences, social sciences etc.).
4. Structure and elements of the general framework
The framework is structured into five areas, which have been explained elsewhere in more detail
(see Vollmer et al. 2008 and Vollmer/Thürmann 2010):
- On the one hand, we include the language competences necessary for informal classroom
interaction and for getting ready to focus on subject-specific work and on tasks (see area 1)
- On the other hand, the frame is based on linguistic insights about the basic language
functions which play a role in (almost) all subject learning and teaching – linked to the
cognitive processes underlying them (e.g. describing, explaining, assessing etc.) (see area 3).
- Thirdly, we distinguish between different phases of processing and learning in content
classrooms, namely between information retrieval, documenting and presenting learning
results as well as exchanging and reflecting about them (these phases require different
qualities of language performance and thus language competences; see areas 2 and 4).
- Finally, we go all the way down to the level of identifying the linguistic means and language
elements (within one particular language of schooling) needed for the realisation of the
competences under 1 to 4. Within this area 5 we distinguish once more between a more
general availability of linguistic tools and abilities and the concrete level of words, sentences
and types of text to be mastered.
Here are some examples of the descriptions for the five areas taken from the NRW frame of
reference:
1. “General classroom interaction: negotiation of meaning and participation:
Oral teacher-learner as well as learner-learner interaction, informal and more formal classroom
language patterns – also written components (e.g. taking notes, black-/ whiteboard notes,
understanding tasks and textbook presentations) …
Students can clarify conditions for handling and completion of tasks, organise their work
procedures effectively and arrive at results
3
This entails mastering the following language skills in particular:





2.
listening carefully
answering properly
putting relevant questions and asking for clarification where necessary
reacting appropriately to other statements by peers or teacher
…
Information retrieval and processing:
Reading-, watching-, listening comprehension activities – specifics of different text types /
genres – methods and techniques for identifying, retrieving and processing relevant
information from documents/materials and other media …
On the basis of their own interests and/or tasks to be carried out, students can do targeted
research for information or, where appropriate, extract relevant information from
documents and other media.
This entails mastering the following language skills in particular:




acquiring the necessary information through targeted investigation
conducting simple searches – using a diverse range of information sources
preparing, carrying out and making use of surveys or interviews
finding one’s way around a library and tracing literature or, where appropriate, media
dealing with a theme relevant to the subject
 …
3.
Basic communicative-cognitive strategies and discourse functions:
Thinking skills structuring and fine-tuning mental concepts – six core macro-functions and
their linguistic/textual representations (primarily related to non-linguistic subjects)…
Students can use appropriate linguistic strategies and tools to process information,
experience, comments and ideas applying basic language/discourse functions.
This entails mastering the following cognitive and language skills in particular:
Naming, defining =
understanding and describing living things, objects, processes, events, topics and problems on
the basis of their specific characteristics and using basic subject-specific terminology.
Describing =
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
…
Explaining, clarifying =
identifying the causes or reasons behind moderately complex subject-related processes or
events and explaining them with reference to a small number of influencing factors
…
4.
Documenting, presenting and exchanging of learning results:
Production of oral/written statements / texts / presentations, also with supportive nonlanguage material – specifics of different text types / genres - compliance with conventional
basic patterns of academic writing …
4
Students can describe or present their own ideas and the findings of their own work in an
appropriate form and communicate on the subject using the basic language functions listed
above.
This entails mastering the following cognitive and language skills in particular:
 reporting on or summarising orally or in writing what has been read, heard or seen
according to instructions
 presenting complex facts and actions using audio-visual material (such as diagrams,
sketches, pictures and maps)
 reporting on the results of group work or a project using visual aids suited to the audience
(such as posters and mural newspapers)
 reporting on processes or arguments in their chronological or logical order using key word
charts
 …
5.
Availability of linguistic means and language elements for the realisation of the abovelisted competences:
Pronunciation, vocabulary, morpho-syntax, pragmatics – awareness of linguistic form and
function - expanding available repertoires - awareness of differences in register and style …
In everyday situations students can use language means in a generally appropriate and
correct manner.
e.g.




expressing oneself clearly in standard German
drafting simple texts clearly and as far as possible without any mistakes
dealing with everyday situations with appropriate vocabulary
…
In highly formal communication contexts dealing with specific subjects and content,
students can use linguistic tools and strategies that enable them to understand properly
and to be precisely understood.
This entails, in particular, having the following abilities helping them to choose linguistic means
and appropriate strategies in keeping with the situation, at various levels:
(1) At the level of individual words, collocations and idiomatic expressions
 using subject-specific terminology and explaining the meaning of technical terms by using
everyday language
 understanding the meaning and function of nominalisation and the nominalisation of
infinitives which are typical of the language used in a specific subject area and using such
words in classroom interaction and in one’s own writing
 using one’s knowledge about the structure of composite nouns and adjectives to decipher
the meaning of technical terms (e.g. “brenn-bar” [burn-able=in-flamm-able], “sauerstoffreich” [rich in oxygen], “säure-fest” [acid-resistant]
 …
(2) At sentence level:
 breaking complex sentences down into several parts in order to understand their content
in every detail
 indicating exactly when or for how long a process lasts (using appropriate prepositions
such as “from”, “between”, “within”, “since” and “during”, yielding expressions such as
“during the heating process”, using clauses introduced by conjunctions such as “while
5
heating the glass flask” or using adverbs such as “at that time”, “afterwards”, “later”,
“tomorrow”, “the day after next”, “yesterday”)
 giving precise details of location
 introducing and more closely defining reasons (causal, instrumental, conditional,
concessive, final)
 …
(3) At the level of the text as whole
 laying out and arranging one’s own texts to take account of the aim being pursued and
the target audience (for example, indicating which passages of the text relate to particular
subjects using paragraphs, indents and subheadings)
 structuring oral statements for example, using pauses
 gathering individual units or paragraphs under the same topic
 identifying what makes the text consistent in terms of content or, where appropriate,
reasoning, and what language means can be used to reflect this consistency
 avoiding presuppositions and introducing new subjects in a well-ordered fashion
 …
As these examples show, the breakdown of the frame into five complementary areas or
dimensions with a great variety of descriptors in each allows for flexible approaches to language
support across the whole curriculum and for different pedagogical situations in teaching and
learning subject-matter. In this way the approach distinguishes itself from the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), which is skill-oriented and not based on
a classification of learning and teaching processes in content classrooms and their
psycholinguistic implications. Language experts (L1, L2, foreign languages), for example, might
make use of all five dimensions when organising targeted language support and will especially
focus on the availability of the learners´ individual linguistic means and strategies in a more
systematic way. Non-language experts might rather choose a functional and pragmatic way
whenever reaching curricular objectives and the language background of the learners make
scaffolding necessary. They will leave the more systematic linguistic training/approaches
(dimension 5) to language experts. When it comes to scaffolding they will probably have to
concentrate on presenting language exponents and “chunks” to learners at risk as part of the
content (of the topic or thematic issues) and as options for subject-specific purposes (cf. the full
document in Thürmann & Vollmer 2011: A Framework of Language Competences Across the
Curriculum3 which should be consulted for overview and important details.
5. The framework as an orientation for subject-specific curriculum revision
Although the list of general academic language descriptors evolved from prior pilot studies as crosscurricular common ground, it needed verification, validation and – if necessary – modification
according to the needs of specific content areas (school subjects). Given the severe time constraints,
it did not allow the subject specialist to examine the framework in greater detail, extend, shorten or
modify it along the lines of subject-specific literacy. Yet, curriculum working groups on all levels
(central, regional, local as well as on the level of individual schools) have started to draw on elements
from this structured inventory which might serve as a framework for cross-curricular coordination or
division of labour and possibly for considerations of systematic language transfer from one subject to
another. It might also turn out to be a valuable resource document for the definition of minimum
language requirements at certain age/competence levels, for defining literacy or relevant exit criteria
and for organising language support programmes.
3
See Note 2
6
In this curriculum development process specialist groups found the list helpful and inspiring; they
used it as a checklist and took from it whatever seemed to suit their content-specific demands.
Accordingly, the frame of reference was adopted in part for social studies and science education in
the “Hauptschule” (Ministerium für Schule…2011a, 2001b). Actually, it was a decisive step forward
for acknowledging the importance of language issues in a curricular framework for content teaching.4
Meanwhile the existence of the frame of reference has also influenced the thinking of other policymaking bodies in the country as well as of university experts for the teaching of specific content
areas (subject didactics).
What the framework does not deal with systematically are the types of texts (or genres) used in the
different school subjects and across the curriculum as a whole. The identification of these is left to
the individual subjects - in how far a common core of genres can be found between the different
subject areas remains an open question at this point. Nevertheless, genres are a central point for
curricular activities and a focal organizer for goal perspectives in each subject; they will have to be
incorporated into a revised and enlarged version of the existing framework for NRW.
Due to a recent change in government and possibly a new mixed-ability approach to the hitherto
dominantly selective multi-track school structure, it is not quite clear how the curriculum reform for
“Hauptschulen” and thus of the initiative to co-ordinate language requirements across the
curriculum will be continued. On the other hand, an official consciousness for the important,
constitutive role of language(s) in content teaching and learning has successfully been established
once and for all (which is indicated in newer policy decisions and documents by the Ministerium für
Schule, 2013). Certainly, the cross-curricular toolkit for language education in all subjects is valid in
itself, so that other member states within the Council of Europe might profit from it and might
consider using it either selectively or as a whole.
6. Processes of adaptation for specific subjects
The authors of the framework were aware that it needs to be filled out or completed in material
terms by the content specifications of the different subjects. This process is at the same time one of
verification of the frame and its usefulness per subject. We made it a point to ask leading didactic
experts in several fields to assess the value of the framework, using it as a “checklist” for their own
particular domain by specifying relevant descriptors in content-specific terms, by dropping irrelevant
ones or adding others, if necessary. This process could therefore also be considered as one of
“nostrification” from the point of view of individual subjects or as one of “validating” the general
framework by confronting it with subject-based specificities, demands and traditions. This whole
procedure was highly necessary in order to make the frame more concrete and accessible to
representatives of individual subjects and particularly to subject teachers themselves. At the same
time, this triggered a complementary process of bottom-up reflection, leading to modifications and
to new or additional formulations and definitions of linguistic items and competences as seen from
the subject’s point of view. The amazing experience is that many of the original claims specific for
one particular subject turned out to be linked (or at least “linkable”) to elements or structures in
other subjects, so that the idea of a core linguistic curriculum across subjects is better understood
and does not seem to be far-reaching after all.
This process is well underway now for a number of disciplines. It started with mathematics (Susanne
Prediger) and continues with biology (Helmut Prechtl), chemistry (Bernd Ralle) and physics (Horst
Schecker) as subjects of science education and with history (Olaf Hartung). Results will be reported at
a later stage.
4
In future, it seems to be advisable to break down this exit inventory of language competences into a scaled
set of minimal standards for different age groups. However, such projects will have to be backed up by
empirical developmental research and careful validation.
7
In one particular case, that of Protestant Religious Education, it has already led to a more detailed
description of the procedures involved in such an adaptation (or “validation”) process and to the
publication of first results, due to a dissertation project at Dresden University (cf. Donnerhack/
Thürmann/ Vollmer 2012).
6.1 Top-down procedures of subject-specific adaption: the case of Religious Education
In the following, some of the main procedures of subject-specific adaptation will be demonstrated by
way of examples. These are based on the results of a cooperative study which was to find out
whether the structure of the general framework was sufficient to describe the language
requirements essential for Protestant Religious Education. Also, the specific indicators within the five
areas of the framework were to be substantiated for Religious Education, exactly for the sake of a
subject-specific “nostrification” (see above). Thus the generalized cognitive and linguistic operations
identified in the framework had to be made more concrete, meaningful and enriched in subjectspecific terms.
The results of this critical interactive process can be summarized in six points:5
1. The basic structure of the general framework including the subdivision of the cognitivelinguistic discourse functions was met with approval in principle. Thus, a considerable part of the
Components listed in the general framework was adopted literally, such as for the dimensions
“General classroom interaction“ and “Availability of linguistic means in everyday situations”.
2. Other sub-components of the general framework were adopted in principle, but illustrated and
complemented with subject specifications. For the area “Availability of linguistic means“, for
example, on the level of individual words the indicator “using subject-specific terminology and
explaining the meaning of technical terms by using everyday language” was specified in
connection with “penance”, “benediction”, “Trinity”, “divine grace”, “salvation”, “remission” and
“the Creator”, among others things.
3. Still other sub-components – particularly in the area of communicative-linguistic strategies and
discourse functions – are further differentiated with direct reference to subject-specific content
and methods. This can be illustrated by the following examples of an indicator for the function
“Describing, Portraying”:
General framework
describing living things, objects, processes, events,
topics or problems
relevant to the subject
area through features related to their
appearance or function, whether directly
observable or emerging as
the result of experiments -
Subject-didactic adaptation and specification
- describing living things, objects, processes, events
relevant to the area of Religious Education through
features related to their appearance or function, e.g.:
- describing basic forms of religious practice (e.g. festivals,
celebrations, rituals, Christian social welfare work)
- apprehending and describing language and testimonies
of faith that are religiously significant
- describing basic aspects of the relation between church,
state and society in the course of history and today with
examples
- describing forms of mutual influence of religion and
religious communities on politics, economy and society in
the past and present
5
The complete framework of academic language requirements in Protestant Religious Education in Saxony
(Germany) at the end of compulsory education at the age of 15/16 including a selection of sample tasks is
available at https://sites.google.com/site/eikethuermann/home/bildungsspracheschulsprache/bildungssprachliche-abschlussprofile.
8
- - describing the religious background of social traditions
and structures (e.g. distinguishing working days from
Sundays; Sundays open for business)
4. Two basic functions had to be added, however, namely “Construing, Interpreting, Analyzing”
and “Simulating, Modeling”. The former of these two functions is specified by the following subcompetences:
 finding and analyzing forms of religious language
 interpreting basic forms of religious language (e.g. myth, parable, symbol, credo, psalm,
prayer, gestures, dogma, instruction, metaphor)
 interpreting own experiences as religious experiences with appropriate means.
 analyzing religious and secular anthropologies that are harmful to life.
The second additional function “Simulating, Modeling” was specified by two subcompetences:
 describing by which means dealing with religious matters can broaden the understanding
of the self and the world
 simulating situations – e.g. with the help of dilemma stories – to gain basic understanding
of religious concepts (e.g. concepts of God).
5. Both examples show that the specification of a general frame from a subject-didactic
perspective does not only imply “adaption” of a top-down nature, but that it also implies
modifications or extensions of a bottom-up type. Both procedures give rise mainly to such genres
which are relevant for subject teaching and not covered by/in other subjects or subject areas
regarding their specifics.
6. By including leading representatives from Catholic Religious Education, it was confirmed that
the general framework provides a useful starting point also for their own subject profession and
that a further denominational differentiation beyond the modifications made by the Protestant
counterparts was not required – except in one case. According to the judgment of Altmeyer
(2013) what is lacking in the framework is the definition of a language competence which is
essential for Religious Education, namely that of “Basic communicative-emotional competences
and attitudes”. This additional competence area should be sub-divided as follows (paraphrases by
the author of this paper):
 communicating with empathy and appreciation: perceiving the other(s) as equal
communication partner(s)
 participating in classroom communication from a first-person perspective that is genuine
and open to discourse
 initiating the first-person perspective for discussion with others’ perspective, being able to
tolerate and accept different religious positions
 dialogue competence: being aware of the emotional level of religious communication and
being able to mediate in situations of religious-communicative conflict
 having command of a basic language to express religious emotions
 checking religious traditions for their expressiveness of one’s religiosity.
6.2 General usability of the frame of reference for the description of academic language
competences in subject learning and teaching
The feedback from the representatives of different subject areas so far is quite encouraging: they all
confirm that the existing framework is useful and helps them to reflect on their own scope of
language education, to formulate their specific needs and practices along the lines of subject
thinking, speaking and writing and possibly to identify differences vis-à-vis other subject areas.
9
Interestingly enough, the linguistic competences involved in subject-related comprehension
processes (i.e. in the reconstruction of meaning from a large diversity of texts) are less thought about
at first hand, unless topicalized especially. The modifications suggested for individual subjects vary
from case to case, however the existing basis and particularly the cross-curricular approach as such
was well accepted and supported.
Overall, the to-down procedures applied for “validating” the given frame of reference seem to be
promising and effective; they will lead – almost automatically – to the complementary bottom-up
processes in identifying and describing what a specific subject area needs in terms of language
support and linguistic competences.6
7. Perspectives: Future Steps
The experience of formulating a provisional frame of reference for linguistic competences to be
achieved across the curriculum and of initiating first steps in embedding these competences into the
curricula of a whole educational system (here: in NRW, one of the German “Länder”) has been
stimulating and successful to this point. It was possible through a clear vision and a carefully
managed educational policy within the confines of one of the federal states of Germany. This process
is spreading across schools and different institutions. It coincides with and is supported by a number
of additional measures and tools.
1. For a number of years already the development and teaching of German as the language of
schooling and instruction to second language learners (mainly with a migrant background) has
been specifically focused upon within NRW. (Two of the centres of activities in this respect are
the universities of Dortmund and of Duisburg-Essen).
2. During the last three years the programme for training a larger group of
“SprachFörderCoaches” (Language Support Coaches, see above) has been successfully
completed and is beginning to show its first positive effects (cf. Thürmann/Vollmer 2011.
3. At the University of Cologne a well-equipped interdisciplinary institute (“MERCATOR
Institute”) was founded with a mission to build up and disseminate knowledge in the teaching
and learning of language(s) of instruction and in promoting plurilingualism. (This is the same
university which hosted the first national conference on “Language(s) in the Content Classroom”
in Germany, initiated by the author of this contribution. This congress brought about a large
collection of research results concerning the role of language(s) in learning school subjects (cf.
Becker-Mrotzek, Schramm, Thürmann & Vollmer 2013).
4. A systematic reflection about the necessary changes in teacher education is taking place,
leading to a revised teacher training concept. On the one hand, a number of obligatory courses
in German as L2 have to be taken by future teachers of all subjects at university, within the preservice training phase. On the other hand, first programmes for educating teachers as agents of
plurilingual development in students and of intercultural learning have been introduced and are
now being established. These initiatives are based on conceptual ground work within
international projects of the European Union (EUCIM-TE 2010) which then led to specific
adaptations and applications for NRW (Brandenburger, Bainski, Hochherz & Roth 2012).
6
The Council of Europe has also commissioned case studies to identify the language items which play a central
role in certain subjects: Detailed derivations, descriptions and analyses of academic language requirements are
available for the subjects of History (Beacco 2009), Sciences (Vollmer 2010), for Literary Education (Pieper
2011) and for Mathematics (Linneweber-Lammerskitten 2012); cf. also the embedding contribution by
Beacco/Coste/van de Ven & Vollmer 2010).
See: : Platform of Resources and References for Plurilingual and Intercultural Education: www.coe.int/langplatform (Box ‘Language(s) in other subjects’)
10
Initiatives like these will enable future teachers of all subjects to become better moderators of
language development in learners (especially the low achievers) and in the conscious use of the
language of schooling as a tool for academic language proficiency, necessary for successful
learning in school and for successful participation in life. The important thing is that the focus is
not any more on the specific needs of the so-called “vulnerable learners” alone, but on rediscovering and re-establishing the central role of languages for content learning and teaching
as such – in the perspective of a right to quality education for each and everyone.
5. Parallel, several checklists for the use of teachers have been developed and provided,
allowing subject teachers to plan the language dimensions of their content teaching better, to
observe their own classroom interaction and to analyze teaching materials as well as test items
or whole tests from the point of view of language requirements involved. The one from
Germany on language sensitivity in content teaching, particularly adopted and applied in NRW
by different subjects, comprises six areas of (self-)observation and (self-)assessment (cf.
Thürmann/Vollmer 2013). It has recently been translated from German and will appear on the
website of the Council of Europe. (A first adaptation for maths is found in Meyer/Prediger 2012).
From the examples given and cited in this paper it has probably become clear how far we have
advanced during the last years concerning the identification of language competences within subject
learning and teaching, in the improvement of educational conditions and in the establishment of
helpful tools for providing help for subject teachers, learners and teacher trainers alike. Yet, many
things are left to be done; this has also become very clear. The influence of the Council of Europe’s
thinking and project “Languages in Education – Languages for Education” is noticeable (even without
official link or authorization). And the work of the Council, especially that of the Language Policy Unit,
will continue to help clarify basic issues involved as well as provide more and better tools for the
enactment of plurilingual education and the support of language learning in all school subjects on a
regional or local level.
References
Altmeyer, S. (2013). Die (religiöse) Sprache der Lernenden. Sprachempirische Zugänge zu einer großen
Unbekannten. In: Becker-Mrotzek, M., Schramm, K., Thürmann, E. & Vollmer, H. J. (eds.), 365-379.
Association for Fachdidaktik / Gesellschaft für Fachdidaktik (2009). Mindeststandards am Ende der
Pflichtschulzeit. Erwartungen des Einzelnen und der Gesellschaft – Anforderungen an die Schule.
Berlin: GFD. (http://www.fachdidaktik-org )
Beacco, J.-C. (2009). Items for a description of linguistic competence in the language of schooling
necessary for teaching/learning history (at the end of compulsory education). An approach with
reference points. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. See: Platform of Resources and References for
Plurilingual and Intercultural Education: www.coe.int/lang-platform (Box ‘Language(s) in other subjects’)
Beacco, J.-C., Coste, D., van de Ven, P.-H. & Vollmer, H. (2010). Language and school subjects –
Linguistic dimensions of knowledge building in school curricula. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. See:
Platform of Resources and References for Plurilingual and Intercultural Education: www.coe.int/langplatform (Box ‘Language(s) in other subjects’)
Becker-Mrotzek, M., Schramm, K., Thürmann, E. & Vollmer, H. J. (2013). Language in Content
Classrooms: Introduction. (translated by H.J. Vollmer). In: Becker-Mrotzek, M., Schramm, K.,
Thürmann, E. & Vollmer, H. J. (eds.), 15-22.
11
Becker-Mrotzek, M., Schramm, K., Thürmann, E. & Vollmer, H. J. (eds.) (2013). Sprache im Fach.
Sprachlichkeit und fachliches Lernen. Münster: Waxmann (Fachdidaktische Forschungen, vol. 3).
Brandenburger, A., Bainski, Ch., Hochherz,W., Roth, H.-J. (2012). National Adaptation of the
European Core Curriculum for Inclusive Academic Language Teaching North Rhine Westphalia,
Germany. Adaption des europäischen Kerncurriculums für inklusive Förderung der
Bildungssprache NRW http://www.eucim-te.eu/data/eso27/File/Material/NRW.%20Adaptation.pdf
Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2008). Schule und Betrieb als Partner. Ein Handlungsleitfaden zur Stärkung
von Berufsorientierung und Ausbildungsreife. http://www.ausbildungspakt-berufsorientierung.de/
Council of Europe. Languages in Education, Languages for Education. A platform of resources and
references for plurilingual and intercultural education. http://www.coe.int/lang-platform
Cummins, Jim (2011). Putting the evidence back into evidence-based policies for underachieving
students. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. See: www.coe.int/lang - ‘Selected Texts’
Donnerhack, S./Thürmann, E. & Vollmer, H.J. (2012). Academic language competences to be acquired
in Protestant Religious Education by the end of compulsory schooling (Year 9/10). Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
Donnerhack, S./Berndt, A./Thürmann, E & Vollmer, H.J. (2013). Bildungssprachliche
Kompetenzerwartungen für den Mittleren Schulabschluss – am Beispiel des Faches Evangelische
Religion. In: Becker-Mrotzek, M., Schramm, K., Thürmann, E. & Vollmer, H. J. (eds.), 381-400.
EUCIM-TE (2010). European Core Curriculum for Inclusive Academic Language Teaching (IALT).
http://www.eucim-te.eu/32340.
Linneweber-Lammerskitten, H. (2012) Items for a description of linguistic competence in the
language of schooling necessary for teaching/learning mathematics (at the end of compulsory
education). An approach with reference points. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. See: Platform of
Resources and References for Plurilingual and Intercultural Education: www.coe.int/lang-platform (Box
‘Language(s) in other subjects’)
Little, David (2010). Linguistic and educational integration of children and adolescents from migrant
backgrounds. Concept Paper. Strasbourg: Council of Europe (www.coe.int/lang - Section Migrants
/ Children and adolescents. See ‘Resources’).
Meyer, M. & Prediger, S. (2012). Sprachenvielfalt im Mathematikunterricht. In: Praxis der
Mathematik in der Schule 45 (54), 2-9.
Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung NRW (Hrsg.) (2011a). Kernlehrplan für die Hauptschule in
Nordrhein-Westfalen. Lernbereich Naturwissenschaften. Biologie, Chemie, Physik. Düsseldorf.
http://www.standardsicherung.schulministerium.nrw.de/lehrplaene/upload/lehrplaene_downloa
d/hauptschule/NW_HS_KLP_Endfassung.pdf.
Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung NRW (Hrsg.) (2011b). Kernlehrplan für die Hauptschule in
Nordrhein-Westfalen. Lernbereich Gesellschaftswissenschaften). Düsseldorf.
Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung NRW (Hrsg.) (2013). Referenzrahmen NRW. Düsseldorf.
http://www.standardsicherung.schulministerium.nrw.de/referenzrahmen/download/Referenzrah
men_Beteiligungsverfahren.pdf [8.7.2013].
Pieper, I. (2011). Items for a description of linguistic competence in the language of schooling
necessary for teaching/learning literature (at the end of compulsory education). An approach with
reference points. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. See: Platform of Resources and References for
Plurilingual and Intercultural Education: www.coe.int/lang-platform (Box ‘Language(s) in other subjects’)
Regionale Arbeitsstellen zur Förderung von Kindern und Jugendlichen aus Zuwandererfamilien (RAA)
(Hrsg.) (2012). Checkliste zur Durchgängigen Sprachbildung und interkulturellen inklusiven
Schulentwicklung. Essen: RAA. [http://www.raa.de/fileadmin/dateien/pdf/Flyer-KommunaleIntegrationszentren.pdf ]
12
Thürmann, E. & Vollmer, H.J. (2011). A Framework of Language Competences Across the Curriculum:
Language(s) in and for Inclusive Education in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). Strasbourg:
Council of Europe. See: Platform of Resources and References for Plurilingual and Intercultural Education:
www.coe.int/lang-platform (Box ‘Languages of schooling’)
Thürmann, E., Vollmer, H.J. & Pieper, I. (2010). Languages of schooling: focusing on vulnerable
learners. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. See: Platform of Resources and References for Plurilingual and
Intercultural Education: www.coe.int/lang-platform (Box ‘Regional, minority and migration languages’)
Thürmann, E. & Vollmer, H.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.
Vollmer, H. J. (2009). Language(s) in Other Subjects. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. See: Platform of
Resources and References for Plurilingual and Intercultural Education: www.coe.int/lang-platform (Box
‘Language(s) in other subjects’)
Vollmer, H. J. (2010) Items for a description of linguistic competence in the language of schooling
necessary for teaching/learning science (at the end of compulsory education). An approach with
reference points. Strasbourg: Council of Europé. See: Platform of Resources and References for
Plurilingual and Intercultural Education: www.coe.int/lang-platform (Box ‘Language(s) in other subjects’)
Vollmer, H. J. (2011). Schulsprachliche Kompetenzen. Zentrale Diskursfunktionen. Osnabrück:
Universität Osnabrück http://www.anglistik.uni-osnabrueck.de/vollmer [26.6.2013].
Vollmer, Helmut J., Thürmann, Eike, Arnold, Christof, Hammann, Marcus & Ohm, Udo (2008).
Elements of a Framework for Describing the Language of Schooling in Subject-Specific Contexts: A
German Perspective. Strasbourg: Council of Europe (Draft version).
Vollmer, Helmut J. & Thürmann, Eike (2010). Zur Sprachlichkeit des Fachlernens: Modellierung eines
Referenzrahmens für Deutsch als Zweitsprache. In: Ahrenholz, Bernt (ed.), Fachunterricht und
Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Tübingen: Narr, 107-132.
Vollmer, H.J. & Thürmann, E. (2013). Sprachbildung und Bildungssprache auf Aufgabe aller Fächer der
Regelschule. In: Becker-Mrotzek, M., Schramm, K., Thürmann, E. & Vollmer, H. J. (eds.), 41-57.
13