Bilingual education and the development of academic achievement, cognitive abilities, and motivation in secondary school: a secondary analysis of the LAU and KESS (BLUE-SKM) data

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

High levels of foreign language proficiency are crucial in many fields of work. Accordingly, the popularity of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programs has increased notably in recent years. Instead of using conventional foreign language instruction, these programs deliver curricular content through the medium of an L2 (in most cases, a lingua franca such as English). These programs aim to achieve additive bilingualism; that is, proficiency in both the first and the second language. The extent to which this is possible, as well as the question of what other effects bilingual education has by the end of secondary school, is poorly understood, particularly in Germany. Up until now, the majority of international studies have not reported any decrease in performance in subjects that are taught in an L2. Moreover, motivational disadvantages of CLIL programs have not been reported. However, positive interlingual transfer effects between L1 and L2 have been found (Gebauer, Zaunbauer, & Möller, 2013).So far, there have not been any longitudinal analyses of the effects of bilingual education, covering the entire period of secondary education in Germany. For bilingualism research, evidence for the long-term achievement development of students of the majority language German, who are taught in English as an L2, would be useful. LAU and KESS provide suitable data for such analyses. The LAU and KESS data will be analyzed with regard to a) achievement development in English, German, mathematics, and biology (as a subject taught in English); b) transfer effects between the languages, c) transfer effects between language proficiency and subject proficiency; d) transfer effects between language proficiency and cognitive skills; e) transfer effects between language proficiency and motivational variables. Until now, such analyses have not been carried out; results on CLIL have only been reported descriptively. In the LAU sample, N = 600 students were taught in bilingual tracks. In the KESS sample, N = 660 students were taught in bilingual tracks. These analyses allow us to pursue both the question of the input selectivity and the question of the effectiveness of bilingual programs.