English in Elementary Schools. Anja Steinlen

all students reach the language competence level A1 and many of them can even reach A2 level in different areas” (p. 40, own translation), although additional information (e.g., on the exact number of students reaching different levels and why; or on separate results for reading and writing) is, unfortunately, not provided.

      There is a general lack of studies for the elementary school context in Germany and elsewhere with respect to children’s writing skills in the target language. Many studies conducted in Germany are rather exploratory and do not include any statistical analyses (e.g., Böttger & Müller, 2020; Burmeister, 2010; Rymarczyk, 2010). Steinlen (2018b) and Steinlen & Piske (2018a, 2020) compared English writing skills by 136 fourth graders who either attended a regular or a partial IM program. They reported that students in regular programs were at level A1, whereas students in a partial IM program were at level A2, with significant differences between the groups, even when controlling for socio-economic status, family language and cognitive ability.

      Outside of Germany, it has also been shown that IM students generally outperform their peers in mainstream programs (e.g., Bae, 2007; Genesee, 1987, 2004; Wesche, 2002). Nevertheless, native-like writing skills in the FL as measured in terms of fluency, complexity (both lexical and grammatical), and accuracy are usually not achieved in IM programs (e.g., Wesche, 2002). IM students apparently produce similar errors in FL writing as their peers in mainstream programs (e.g., with respect to L1 transfer, e.g., Burmeister, 2010); however, their texts are longer and more complex in structure and wording (e.g., Bae, 2007; Rymarczyk, 2010; Swain, 1975). Most studies in this context have, however, been carried out with secondary school students (e.g., Nold et al., 2008; Zydatiss, 2009, for Germany; Bulon, Hendrik, Meunier & Van Goethem, 2017 for Belgium; Lyster, 2007; Swain & Lapkin, 1995 for Canada; Roquet & Pérez-Vidal, 2017 for Spain) with a focus on longer texts as well as on the use of grammatical structure and idiomatic and pragmatic expressions.

      In general, the results strongly indicate that FL literacy skills develop particularly well in IM programs. This is probably due to the fact that a much higher number of writing activities are carried out in FL subject lessons than in regular FL lessons; and that the students not only receive more written input, but also have to produce more written output. Chapter 7 will point out many activities that are currently employed in FL bilingual (but also in regular FL) classrooms to foster FL literacy skills.

      2.3.12 FL reading and writing in bilingual programs with different FL intensity

      So far, a within-group comparison of FL reading and writing skills in bilingual programs with different FL intensity has not been carried out in Germany. For Canada, such a comparison included only immersion programs with different intensity. Comparing total vs. partial IM (i.e., 50/50) programs with an early start, the findings demonstrated that the gains (e.g., in reading) vis-a-vis early total IM will be lower, or roughly commensurate with the relative total time spent in the FL (Wesche, 2002). Late-starting low-intensity bilingual programs (i.e., 20/80 programs) may be quite successful in enhancing FL English proficiency of academically-inclined (Gymnasium) students (Wesche, 2002; see also Burmeister & Daniel, 2002; Wode, 1995, 2009). Evidence for 20/80 programs with an early start is, unfortunately, scarce. The findings of smaller-scale studies indicate improvement in FL learning (regarding FL reading, writing, grammar and vocabulary comprehension) from grade 1 to 4, but not always significant differences from year to year (e.g., Böttger & Müller, 2020; Couve et al., 2016; Steinlen & Gerdes, 2015).

      There seem to be very few studies which compared low vs. high FL intensity programs, and these either relate to FL receptive vocabulary of elementary school children or to older learners. For example, Couve et al. (2016) compared 61 students in three different bilingual classes in Germany and assessed their performance for English receptive vocabulary, using the British English Vocabulary Scale. The students, who were tested in grade 1 and 2 (at T1 and T2), attended one of three programs where either 20%, 25% or 30-40% of the teaching time were conducted in English. The results yielded significant differences between the 25% and the 30-40% program and between the 20% and the 30-40% program but not between the 20% and the 25% program at both T1 and T2. Similarly, in terms of FL vocabulary gains within a year, significant differences between T1 and T2 were found for the 25% and the 30-40% program but not for the 20% program. Couve et al. (2016) attributed these group differences to class composition, with an uneven distribution of children in the three classes who either had previous knowledge of the target language and/or higher metalinguistic awareness due to a multilingual background.

      Turning to older learners in different IM programs, Reeder, Buntain & Takakuwa (1999) examined almost 80 English students in grade 6, who attended either a 50/50 or an 80/20 French IM program in Canada. They were tested on FL French reading as well as on descriptive and narrative French writing. The results indicated significant between-group differences for French reading and narrative writing (but not for French descriptive writing), thus underscoring the positive effect of FL intensity for the development of FL literacy skills.

      In sum, studies on bilingual programs indicated a) that students’ L1 reading and writing skills develop age-appropriately and b) that FL competence in reading and writing depends on the intensity of the FL program on the one hand and on the start of the FL program on the other hand.