It has been almost 20 years since the results of the first PISA study caused a stir in Germany: not only were German pupils’ results below average. What was particularly shocking was the finding that educational success in this country correlates more strongly with social background than in almost any other. In particular, children from migrant backgrounds – which PISA links to specific socio-economic circumstances – were found to have poor prospects of success within the German education system. One of the key causes of this correlation was quickly identified: a lack of language skills.

Language norms often remain implicit

However, it is not migration-related multilingualism that is the decisive factor in determining how well or poorly children and young people can cope with the linguistic demands of the classroom, explains Juliana Goschler, Professor of German as a Second Language and German as a Foreign Language. Rather, it is a question of what are known as ‘educational language’ competences. “The term ‘educational language’ distinguishes the language spoken in everyday life from the way in which language is used in educational institutions. And not all pupils have an equal command of this linguistic register,” says Goschler.

Furthermore, the linguistic requirements vary from subject to subject: “This may involve specific vocabulary, but certain sentence structures or tenses are also typical of some subjects,” she explains. For instance, texts in history textbooks are often written in the past tense, whilst this tense does not feature at all in other subjects. In the natural sciences, on the other hand, one frequently finds formulaic phrasing such as ‘If we want to calculate x, we must …’. Goschler criticises the fact that these linguistic norms are often kept implicit. On the one hand, she says, this prevents pupils from learning to understand and produce these linguistic patterns themselves; ultimately, however, it often also hinders them from learning the subject matter.

Raising teachers’ awareness of the importance of language

This makes it all the more important to raise awareness among trainee teachers, across all subjects, of the importance of language in schools and in the classroom, says Goschler. “This means examining one’s own subject-specific and language of instruction, as well as teaching materials; recognising pupils’ linguistic abilities and building on them; and, finally, developing a critical and reflective attitude towards language and language education.” The linguist has investigated how this can be achieved, amongst other things, in the project ‘Shaping Change – Language Support and Education as Integral Components of Innovative Teacher Training in Lower Saxony’, which ran from 2014 to 2017. One insight from this period: The perspective of linguistics alone is not sufficient to fully grasp and convey the linguistic challenges within the various subjects. “This is where subject-specific didactics come into play,” says the university lecturer, “as they have the best understanding of subject-specific teaching and learning processes.”

At the ‘Centre for Teacher Education – Didactic Centre’ (DiZ) in Oldenburg, the ‘Language-Sensitive Teaching and Learning’ unit, headed by Goschler, has since 2016 provided a permanent home for this topic within the university. A number of recently approved projects aimed at professionalising teacher training build on this work: As part of the ‘Biography-Oriented and Cross-Phase Teacher Training in Oldenburg’ (OLE+) project, researchers from various disciplines are examining the complexity of linguistic interactions in schools and other educational contexts. One of the key focuses of the DiOLL project (Digitalisation in Oldenburg Teacher Education) is to investigate the requirements of language-sensitive subject teaching.

Researching language in educational contexts

To consolidate and highlight the current state of research on this topic in Oldenburg, Goschler, together with the cultural studies scholar and Director of the DiZ, Prof. Dr Martin Butler, has launched a series of publications entitled ‘Language Sensitivity in Educational Processes’. The series kicks off with the anthology ‘Language-Sensitive Subject Teaching: Opportunities and Challenges from an Interdisciplinary Perspective’, edited by Butler and Goschler.

“The contributions from various researchers at the University of Oldenburg shed light on subject-specific didactic, linguistic, educational and cultural studies perspectives on language in school learning contexts,” explains Butler. For example, the book addresses linguistic and textual requirements in the classroom, as well as the question of whether linguistic metaphors such as ‘packages’ or ‘clouds’ are suitable for subject-specific learning in computer science lessons. Another article examines the influence that action-oriented technology lessons – that is, those based on concrete practical situations – can have on language acquisition processes by creating opportunities for spontaneous, authentic communication.

The subjectifying effects of language in schools are also a topic of discussion – the question is how the way we speak to one another organises and regulates social relationships. What effect, for example, does it have on the self-perception of children and young people to be repeatedly addressed as ‘pupils with a migrant background’? ‘Language helps to categorise people,’ explains Goschler. Every label evokes certain characteristics and stereotypes, including or excluding people from a particular group. Butler adds that, particularly against the backdrop of a society shaped by migration, it is important to continue researching these dimensions of language and to raise awareness of them among students with a view to their future careers in schools.

Teaching history with linguistic sensitivity

The History Didactics Working Group led by Prof. Dr Dietmar von Reeken is also represented with a contribution in the anthology. The historian notes that it is certainly nothing new that language is of great importance to the subject of history. “After all, access to the past usually takes place through language, primarily via written sources or written accounts of history.” In history education research, however, the role of language has so far hardly been explicitly addressed. Yet the subject of history presents particular linguistic challenges: “We do not have an explicit technical language, as the natural sciences do,” explains von Reeken. “Although terms such as ‘king’ or ‘citizen’ are familiar from everyday life, in historical contexts they often have a completely different meaning.”

Pupils must therefore constantly translate from historical language into contemporary language. Furthermore, in history lessons, learners are expected to develop narrative competence – that is, the ability to understand history and to be able to recount it themselves – “and to do so in a linguistically appropriate manner”, emphasises von Reeken. The challenge for teachers is therefore not only to convey the subject’s content, but also to explain what linguistic skills are required. According to the historian, however, the latter is not systematically incorporated into lessons. “Somehow, it’s expected that they’ll pick this up along the way.”

Developing new support strategies

Sinje Eichner and Max-Simon Gündert, who are both PhD students under von Reeken, are investigating how teachers can support their pupils linguistically so that they learn history more effectively. Eichner is examining the role that spoken language plays in the subject of history – a topic that has received little attention to date, despite the fact that a great deal of speaking takes place in the classroom. Gündert, meanwhile, is focusing on writing. For his doctoral thesis, he has developed a support framework that helps pupils learn to put historical judgements into writing. “Historical thinking is expressed at the linguistic level through recurring patterns of phrasing, known as text procedures,” he explains. A historical value judgement is evident, for example, in expressions such as ‘according to today’s moral standards’ or ‘from today’s perspective’. To learn these text procedures, pupils first work with model texts: “They analyse how textual procedures are used and reflect on how these indicate historical thinking. They then practise writing historical judgements themselves,” explains Gündert. The historian has already investigated the effectiveness of the model in a preliminary study.

To ensure that such support programmes ultimately find their way into schools, von Reeken believes it is essential to embed the topic of language more firmly in teacher training. This is a demand he shares with Goschler and Butler. Whilst teacher training students in Berlin and North Rhine-Westphalia have long been required to take modules focusing on language, other Federal States are only slowly following suit. “The Lower Saxony Master’s degree regulations do state that the topic of language must be addressed. But there is no educational policy requirement to embed it as a module within the degree programmes. That needs to change,” demands Goschler. (nc)