Content uploaded by Kristin Kersten
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kristin Kersten on Feb 28, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
L2 INSTRUCTION PREDICTS
YOUNG LEARNERS' L2 COMPREHENSION IN
BILINGUAL AND CONVENTIONAL PROGRAMS
Ann-Christin Bruhn, Katharina Ponto, Kristin Kersten
University of Hildesheim, Germany
AILA 2021
15-20 August, Groningen
1. Theoretical Background
▪Language Learning in ISLA
▪Relevance of L2 Input Quality
2. Research Design
3. Participants
4. Research Questions
5. The Teacher Input Observation
Scheme
6. Results
7. Discussion and Conclusion
2
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim
OUTLINE OF
PRESENTATION
Ann-Christin Bruhn,
Katharina Ponto,
Kristin Kersten
University of Hildesheim,
Germany
AILA 2021
15-20 August, Groningen
Working definition:
"sights, including pointing and gesturing, sounds, smells,
tastes, etc., in other words everything that contributes
to the interpretation of an utterance and which can lead
to further development of an individual’s linguistic
ability, i.e. all the relevant external contexts. This should
be included in a comprehensive understanding of what
input is."
(Truscott & Sharwood Smith, 2019, p. 10; compare Carroll, 1999)
'INPUT' IN THE
TEACHER INPUT OBSERVATION SCHEME
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 3
1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA)
▪"good teaching is teaching that proceeds in
accordance with how learners learn."
(Ellis & Shintani, 2014: 27)
ISLA core questions:
➢How are second languages (L2) learned in an
instructional context (i.e., in school)?
➢How can instruction be optimized to foster second
language (L2) learning?
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 4
HOW ARE SECOND LANGUAGES (L2) LEARNED IN
AN INSTRUCTIONAL CONTEXT? (Kersten, accepted: 6)
Based on:
Gass et al. (2020); Leow (2015);
Kormos (2011); Truscott &
Sharwood Smith (2019)
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 5
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344402808_L2_input_and_characteristics_of_instructional_techniques_in_early_foreign_language_classrooms_-
_Underlying_theory_and_pedagogical_practice
HOW ARE SECOND LANGUAGES (L2) LEARNED IN
AN INSTRUCTIONAL CONTEXT? (Kersten, accepted: 6)
sensory input:
➢multisensory
stimulation
(vision, hearing, touch,
smell, taste)
➢relevant features:
strength of signal
frequency of signal
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 6
HOW ARE SECOND LANGUAGES (L2) LEARNED IN
AN INSTRUCTIONAL CONTEXT? (Kersten, accepted: 6)
internal
representations
(conceptual,
linguistic, emotional
knowledge construction
cognitive involvement:
➢relevant features:
active involvement
deep thinking
problem-solving
depth of processing
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 8
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim
HOW ARE SECOND LANGUAGES (L2) LEARNED IN
AN INSTRUCTIONAL CONTEXT? (Kersten, accepted: 6)
emotion /
value
surprisal
cognitive
involvement:
➢relevant features:
prior knowledge
attention
noticing
interest/value
emotions
attention
prior knowledge
AILA 2021 10
HOW ARE SECOND LANGUAGES (L2) LEARNED IN
AN INSTRUCTIONAL CONTEXT? (Kersten, accepted: 6)
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 11
HOW CAN L2 INSTRUCTION BE OPTIMIZED?
(Kersten, accepted: 3)
See, e.g., Böttger (2016), de Graaff & Housen (2009), Gass et al. (2020), Ellis & Shintani (2014),
Leow (2015), Loewen (2020), Loewen & Sato (2018), Long (2015), Truscott & Sharwood Smith (2019)
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 12
HOW CAN L2 INSTRUCTION BE OPTIMIZED?
(Kersten, accepted: 3)
AILA 2021 13
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim
HOW CAN L2 INSTRUCTION BE OPTIMIZED?
(Kersten, accepted: 3)
language system
conceptual system
coactivation
language
learning:
➢relevant
features:
meaningful
contexts
coactivation
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 15
HOW CAN L2 INSTRUCTION BE OPTIMIZED?
(Kersten, accepted: 3)
modifying classroom activities:
➢relevant features:
meaningful
interesting content / purpose
motivating / age-appropriate
non-language-related goal
(other TBLT features)
activities
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 17
HOW CAN L2 INSTRUCTION BE OPTIMIZED?
(Kersten, accepted: 3)
modifying verbal input:
➢relevant features:
accompanies all activities
intonation, speech rate, pauses
repetitions
rich, varied structures
comprehensible
verbal
input
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 19
HOW CAN L2 INSTRUCTION BE OPTIMIZED?
(Kersten, accepted: 3)
modifying non-verbal input:
➢relevant features:
body language
mime
visual illustrations
auditory illustrations
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 21
HOW CAN L2 INSTRUCTION BE OPTIMIZED?
(Kersten, accepted: 3)
supporting output:
➢relevant features:
train L2 use
notice gaps
corrective feedback
(language and content)
recast / prompts, …
output
feedback types
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 23
See, e.g., Böttger (2016); de Graaff & Housen (2009); Gass et al. (2020); Ellis & Shintani (2014);
Leow (2015); Loewen (2020); Loewen & Sato (2018); Long (2015); Truscott & Sharwood Smith (2019)
HOW CAN L2 INSTRUCTION BE OPTIMIZED?
(Kersten, accepted: 3)
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 24
➢positive results of (aspects of) input quality:
(Aukrust, 2007; Echevarría et al., 2006, 2010, 2011; Gass & Mackey, 2015;
Graham et al., 2017; Kersten et al., 2010; Loewen & Sato, 2018; Massler &
Iannou-Georgiou, 2010; Muñoz, 2006; Murphy, 2014; Paradis et al., 2017;
Snow, 1990; Spada & Fröhlich, 1995; Unsworth et al., 2014; Weitz, 2015 … )
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 25
RELEVANCE OF INPUT QUALITY
Example on effect of L2 input:
ELIAS Study (10 bilingual preschools)
▪influence of L2 input quality on receptive
L2 grammar and vocabulary skills
▪as measured with the IQOS
(Input Quality Observation Scheme)
(Kersten et al., 2018, forthc.; Weitz et al., 2010; Weitz, 2015)
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 26
Kersten et al. (2010). Bilingual Preschools: Learning and Development. Trier: WVT.
Weitz, M. (2015). Die Rolle des L2 Inputs in Bilingualen Kindergärten. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang.
AILA 2021
RELEVANCE OF INPUT QUALITY
EXAMPLE FOR INPUT QUALITY:
SCAFFOLDING TECHNIQUES (BILINGUAL GERMAN PRESCHOOL)
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 27
T: Here is a sun # (holds up a form made of clay, children talk in the background), psst, here is a sun
(LL1: Leise [quiet]) # here is a sun. I took # clay # (holds up a package of clay) clay
LL2: clay
T: yeah, and I KNEAded the clay (demonstrates movement with both hands). It’s called WEDging,
when you do that. And you SMACK it down (mimes throwing a lump of clay on the table)
LL2: Du knetet # es
T: you throw it, pfft (imitates the sound), it goes pfft (repeats the movement), and then you go
SQUISH, squish, squish (mimes kneading movement and imitates the sound)
LL2: Du hast es geknetet?
T: And you throw it again (repeats the movement) pfft, and you/ yes (nods to LL2), and you KNEAD
the clay.
LL3: Hast du das gemacht? [Did you do that?]
LL2: Wie, geknetet? geknetet? [What, kneaded? Kneaded?]
T: Yeah (nods). And then you make it FLAT (mimes movement with both hands)
LL2: glatt machen
EXAMPLE FOR INPUT QUALITY:
SCAFFOLDING TECHNIQUES (BILINGUAL GERMAN PRESCHOOL)
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 28
T: And then you ROLL it, like cookies (mimes rolling with both hands)
LL2: rollen, rollen, rollen
T: ROLL it. # And then you can cut it out with a cookie cutter or with a knife # and make the form
that you want (holds up the form and points to its angles). # And then you put it outside in the sun #
(points outside) in the air # the hot air
LL3: damit das trocknet [to dry]
T: (nods towards LL4) to DRY. Yeah?
LL3 (asks a question, not comprehensible)
T: (holds up the package) THIS clay # this clay you cannot put in the oven (shakes her head), you
cannot cook it, you cannot FIRE it # yeah? So it’s not very HARD (shakes her head and holds up the
form), its not very hard.
LL3: (…) Da ist noch eine Sonne! [There is another sun!]
T: And when it’s dry and hard like this (holds up the form again); then you can paint it # (holds up the
other form which is painted and shows it to the children)
LL3: Hast du das alles gemacht? [Did you do all of this?]
T: (shakes her head) This is not mine
EXAMPLE FOR INPUT QUALITY:
SCAFFOLDING TECHNIQUES (BILINGUAL GERMAN PRESCHOOL)
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 29
LL2: Dis is WUNderful!
T: (points to the painted sun) This is from MY child (points towards herself), MY child (gives the
name of her child)
LL3: von deinen Kindern [from your children]
LL2: Dis is WUNderFUL!
T: Thank you! (smiles)
(… The group carries out more preparations for the activity)
LL3: Also sind die Sachen aus Gips? [So, these things are made of plaster?]
T: (shakes her heas) No, it’s not/ it’s not PLASTER, its CLAY (imitates kneading with both hands) # it
feels like/ (moves her fingers)
LL2: Kleber? [glue?]
LL3: aus Plastik? [of plastic?]
T: (shakes her head) No, it’s not GLUE, not glue # (moves her fingers) CLAY
EXAMPLE FOR INPUT QUALITY:
SCAFFOLDING TECHNIQUES (BILINGUAL GERMAN PRESCHOOL)
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 30
LL2: Farbe, Farbe, Farbe [color, color, color]
T: Nee # (holds up the painted sun again), this is paint (points to the color and then holds up the
unpainted form)
LL2: paint
T: This is not paint (shakes her head)
LL2: this CLAY
T: (nods) Clay # (holds up both forms) Both are clay, see? (points to the back of both forms and
taps on them)
LL1: this clay? (points to the package that lies in T's lap)
T: (holds up the package) This clay is WET, it was NOT in the sun (shakes her head) #
LL2: wet
T: (puts the package down and holds up both forms) and this is DRY, this was in the SUN.
(points outside)
EXAMPLE FOR INPUT QUALITY:
SCAFFOLDING TECHNIQUES (BILINGUAL GERMAN PRESCHOOL)
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 31
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of HildesheimAILA 2021
Input
Quality
Observation
Scheme
(IQOS)
Quantity
Input
Characteristics
Promoting
Comprehension
Reacting to
Childr.'s Output
Children's
Reaction
(Kersten et al., 2010,
Weitz et al., 2010,
Weitz, 2015)
Interrater reliability
r = 0.966, p < 0.05*
Internal consistency
= .819
32
estimated t1
(initial value) grammar
estimated change
grammar
intensity of L2
contact L2 input quality sex migrantion
background age SES reading books
3.80*1.35n.s. .04n.s. .72*- 2.63n.s. 1.98n.s. 2.94** .46** - .03n.s. -.05n.s.
3.19n.s. .25n.s.
- 3.25*.42n.s.
L2 duration
.52** -.06n.s.
estimated
change vocabolary
-.69n.s, 3.17** 1.25** -.33n.s. - .83n.s. 1.39n.s. .76n.s. .44n.s. .23n.s. -.02n.s.
.38** -.38n.s.. 2.35n.s. .14n.s. 1.59n.s.
-3.02n.s.
estimated t1
(initial value) vocabolary
36.47** .06n.s.
grammar
T1
grammar
change
vocab.
T1 vocab.
change
L2
duration L2
intensity L2 input
quality sex home lg.
backgrd. age reading
books SES
RESULTS FROM BILINGUAL PRESCHOOLS (N=210, 21 TEACHERS)
IQOS (INPUT QUALITY OBSERVATION SCHEME, Weitz, 2015)
Multivariate Growth Model on receptive L2 (Kersten et al. 2018, forthc.)
33
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim
➢non-standardized regression coefficients; controlled for preschool L1
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 34
2. RESEARCH DESIGN
Aim of the study:
What aspects of a teacher's L2 input and
characteristics of L2 input contexts foster L2A?
2014-2018
Cross
-sectional Study
Teachers
Videotaped
lesson
Analyzed
with Teacher Input
Observation
Scheme
best
rating, ensuring
comparability
/
representativeness
Learners
L2 English
lexical and
grammatical
comprehension
standardized
procedures
3. PARTICIPANTS
ENGLISH AS A
FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL)
IMMERSION
(IM; GERMAN + L2 ENGLISH)
Program
2 L2 lessons / week ca. 75% of the curriculum in the L2
Start of English Program
Grade 3 Grade 1
Teacher
1.1
Teacher
1.2
Teacher
1.3
Teacher
2.1
Teacher
2.2
Teacher
2.3
Teacher
2.4
English Native Speaker
no no no yes yes yes no
Trained Teacher in EFL
no yes yes yes yes yes yes
Class 1.1
Class 1.2
Class 1.3
Class 2.1
Class 2.2
Class 2.3
Class 2.4
N
14 23 20 810 21 22
Female
/ Male 7 / 7 12 / 11 8 / 12 3 / 5 4 / 6 12 / 10 8 /13
▪N = 7 teachers
▪N= 118; 54 female, 64 male; Mage= 9;11 (106-132 months)
▪2 types of foreign language programs; 4. Grade (EFL N= 57, IM N= 61)
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 35
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 36
EXAMPLES FROM DIFFERENT INSTRUCTIONAL SETTINGS
FROM 4TH GRADE GERMAN L2 LEARNERS OF ENGLISH
(T stands in front of the blackboard and holds up a DIN A4 worksheet in
her right hand.)
T: (points to worksheet) What time is it? (looks at the students) S1.
S1: It‘s twelve o‘clock.
T: (nods) That‘s right. (points at the number on the worksheet) What time
is it? S2? Look here (points to the worksheet with one finger). What time
is it?
S2: Ehm. Two o‘clock.
T: S3. What time is it? It‘s…
S2: Two o‘clock.
T: That‘s right. It‘s two o‘clock. What time is it? (points and looks at the
worksheet; S are restless, look elsewhere) Ich möchte es nicht nochmal
sagen, wir vergleichen jetzt (I don‘t want to say it again, we are
comparing now) S3.
S3: It‘s two o‘clock.
Untrained
EFL Teacher
Example of
an Exercise
TIOS score:
44
EFL
program:
non-
intensive
2 lessons
in L2 /
week
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 37
EXAMPLES FROM DIFFERENT INSTRUCTIONAL SETTINGS
FROM 4TH GRADE GERMAN L2 LEARNERS OF ENGLISH
T: Okay, today, you get a family tree (sticks two large handouts onto the
whiteboard), so, one and two. And you play a game with a partner. So here I
prepared some dices (sic.) with all the pictures (shows them to the class),
okay= So now, I start and I roll the dice (rolls the dice and looks at the family
member it shows) oh, and this one (shows a picture to the class) is uncle. So I
ask S1 (points to herself, to S1, then to a phrase on the whiteboard) ‘Have you
got an uncle?‘ (waits for S1‘s answer; S1 looks at her shrugs; T points to two
other phrases on the whiteboard) Yes I have, no I haven‘t.
S1: No, I haven‘t-
T: All right (imitates beep) Your turn.
[…]
T: Okay, this is a game. Okay? Do you understand the game? Is the game
clear? (Holds up a thumb) Do you know what to do? Any questions? (S2 asks a
question, not intelligble) Yes, you can. S2?
S2: Sollen wir jetzt die Würfel basteln? (Are we supposed to make the dice?)
T: No, I have dices (sic.) for you. Okay? Please find a partner, mo/ go back to
your seats and I pass out the family trees and the dices.
Trained EFL
Teacher
Example
of a task
TIOS score:
59
EFL
program:
non-
intensive
2 lessons
in L2 /
week
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 38
EXAMPLES FROM DIFFERENT INSTRUCTIONAL SETTINGS
FROM 4TH GRADE GERMAN L2 LEARNERS OF ENGLISH
(General Studies lesson: materials for the experiment and an instruction
sheet in the L2 with visual illustrations is placed on the table of each
group)
S1 (explains experiment): We are filling this measuring tube up with
seven mililiters of orange / lemon juice, and the we are putting it into a
small tube # with a lid, and the acid of the lemon juice and the baking
powder produce gas, and then the tube explodes.
(The children carry out the experiment autonomously according to the
instruction sheet.)
After the experiment:
S1: Can somebody draw a conclusion?
S2: The baking powder and the lemon juice produce
gas, and in the box is too much pressure, that‘s why
the lid blows/ # makes boom
(shows explosion with a gesture, everybody laughs)
Example
of a
content-
based
lesson
Trained EFL
Teacher
TIOS score:
62
Immersion
program:
20 lessons
in L2 /
week
STUDENT
CONCEPTS OF SCAFFOLDING AND L2 TEACHING
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 39
TEACHERTEACHER
STUDENT
TEACHER
Time of L2 Exposure
Competence
Competence Proficiency
Contingency
Response
Scaffolding
Contingency
Response
Scaffolding
Model adapted from van de Pol et al. (2010)
Fading Support
Support
1. Do foreign language and immersion teachers differ in their use of teaching
techniques?
higher TIOS scores regarding content-based scaffolding techniques for immersion
teachers to make the subject content comprehensible
foreign language teachers may need more scaffolding techniques to support
comprehension for language beginners
Effects: Application of TIOS scores to leaner data
2. Is there a relationship between the TIOS scores and young learners' L2 lexical and
grammar comprehension?
strong relationship based on the sources in respect of input quality
3. Which techniques in particular are related to L2 lexical and grammar
comprehension of young L2 learners of English?
negative correlations for techniques enhancing comprehension
(beginner level)
positive correlations for meaningful and cognitive-stimulating techniques
(more advanced learners)
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 40
AILA 2021
4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS / HYPOTHESES
observable,
describable,
practically applicable
(Cook, 2008:235, cf. Hummel, 2014:107;
Richards & Rodgers, 2014:35,
Long, 2015:301 [procedures]; see Pieczurczyk, 2017)
as opposed to "scaffolding", "NoM":
high-level categories or categories including
functions / goals / intentions
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 41
AILA 2021
OPERATIONALIZING THE TECHNIQUES
(SCALES & ITEMS) FOR MEASUREMENT
Interrater Reliability TIOS:
(N=18 lessons, 2 rater)
Krippendorff‘s alpha = .882*
(687 cases, 1374 decisions)
Internal Consistency TIOS:
Cronbachs alpha = .905
(38 items)
(Conradi & Lietzau, 2019)
L2 Teaching Technique
Description of how a communicative behavior or activity
is carried out in the classroom at a given moment as the
actual point of contact with the learner/s (Kersten, in press)
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 42
1. Cognitive Stimulating Activities
within Learners' Realm of Experience
Task Characteristics
AILA 2021
5. TIOS: COGNITIVE STIMULATING ACTIVITIES
WITHIN LEARNERS' REALM OF EXPERIENCE
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 43
2. Verbal Input
(phonological, lexical, morpho-syntact.)
Teacher Talk:
Support of Comprehensible Input
AILA 2021
TIOS: VERBAL INPUT
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 44
3. Non-Verbal Input
(teacher-internal / -external)
Teacher Talk:
Support of Comprehensible Input
AILA 2021
TIOS: NON-VERBAL INPUT
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 45
4. Support of Learners' Output
Teacher Talk:
Support of Comprehensible Output
AILA 2021
TIOS: SUPPORT OF LEARNERS' OUTPUT
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
EFL Immersion
Program
TIOS Total Score Percent
p< .05*
51.24%
65.53%
6. RESULTS: DIFFERENCES OF L2 INPUT QUALITY
EFL & IMMERSION TEACHERS
1. Do foreign language and immersion teachers differ in their
use of teaching techniques? (t-tests)
➢N = 7, n= 4 EFL, n= 3 IM
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 46
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Characteristics of Tasks
/ Activities
Verbal Input Non-Verbal Input Support of Learners'
Output
TIOS Total Score
EFL Immersion
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 47
p= .064+ p = .018*p= .141
p= .193p= .019*
6. RESULTS: DIFFERENCES OF L2 INPUT QUALITY
7 EFL AND IMMERSION TEACHERS
1. Do foreign language and immersion teachers differ in their
use of teaching techniques? (t-tests)
➢N = 7, n= 4 EFL, n= 3 IM
Set 12: “
Show me incisor”
A: Plural
–s:
“
Show me cats”; distractor: dog
B: Plural
–s:
“
Show me cat”; distractor: dogs
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 48
Lexicon: BPVS III
(British Picture Vocabulary Scale, Third Edition)
(Dunn et al., 2009)
ELIAS Grammar Test II
(Kersten et al., 2012)
2. Is there a relationship between the TIOS scores and young
learners' L2 lexical and grammar comprehension?
AILA 2021
6. RESULTS: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TIOS SCALES
AND L2 COMPREHENSION
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 49
6. RESULTS: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TIOS SCALES
AND L2 COMPREHENSION
Table 1.
Correlations for L2 Skills
NTask
Characteristics
Verbal
Input
Non-
Verbal
Input
Support of
Output
TIOS
Total Sore
L2 Grammar
114 .859** .437** .527** .631** .776**
L2 Lexicon 114 .712** .342** .534** .561** .665**
Program 118 .878** .512** .517** .708** .827**
Note.
+p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .001
Cohen, 1988: │.1 │ = small; │.3 │ = medium; │.5│ = high
N= 118; 54 female, 64 male; Mage= 9;11 (106-132 m.); 4. Grade (EFL n= 57, IM n= 61)
Results of correlational analyses:
•L2 Grammar: Regression: R2= 85.1 %; R2adjusted = 84.8 % (F(2, 111) = 317.332, p< .001**)
Program: (B=22.892, t=13.611, p<.001**); TIOS: (B=0.071, t=0.693, p=.490)
•L2 Lexicon: Regression: R2= 71.2 %; R2adjusted = 70.7 % (F(2, 111) = 137.162, p< .001**)
Program: (B=26.959, t=10.201, p<.001**); TIOS: (B=-0.159, t=-0.992, p=.323)
Results multiple linear regression with Program and TIOS as predictors (enter method):
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 50
BSEBβt p R2
.603
(Constant)
-18.158
5.588 -3.250 .002**
TIOS Total
1.216 0.093 .776 13.035
< .001**
Note.
(N=114) +p< .10; *p< .05; **p< .01
Regression: R2= 60.3 %; R2adjusted = 59.9 % (F(1, 112) = 169.898, p< .001)
6. RESULTS: REGRESSION ANALYSES
TIOS TOTAL SCORE PREDICTING L2 SKILLS
L2 Grammar
60.3%
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto, Schriek & Kersten, Hildesheim 50
BSEBβt p R2
.442
(Constant)
4.220 7.576 0.557 .579
TIOS Total
1.190 0.126 .665 9.416
< .001**
Note.
(N=114) +p< .10; *p< .05; **p< .01
Regression: R2= 44.2 %; R2adjusted = 43.7 % (F(1, 112) = 88.668, p< .001)
44.2%
L2 Lexicon
6. RESULTS: REGRESSION ANALYSES
TIOS SCALES PREDICTING L2 SKILLS
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 51
BSEBβt p R2
.577
(Constant)
-7.372 8.786 -0.839 .403
Characteristics of Tasks / Activities
0.931 0.147 .518 6.326 < .001**
Verbal Input
-0.279 0.151 -.221 -1.852 .067+
Non
-Verbal Input 0.243 0.089 .224 2.735 .007**
Support of Learners' Output
0.608 0.302 .293 2.016 .046*
Note.
(N=114) +p< .10; *p< .05; **p< .01
L2 Grammar
BSEBβt p R2
.763
(Constant)
-28.141 5.784 -4.866 < .001
Characteristics of Tasks / Activities
1.157 0.097 .736 11.980 < .001**
Verbal Input
-0.014 0.099 -.012 -0.137 .891
Non
-Verbal Input 0.088 0.058 .093 1.506 .135
Support of Learners' Output
0.252 0.199 .138 1.268 .207
L2 Grammar: R2= 76.3 %; R2adjusted = 75.4 % (F(4, 109) = 87.617, p< .001)
L2 Grammar
L2 Lexicon
76.3%
57.7%
Results multiple regression with TIOS Scales (enter method): Explanation
of Variance:
L2 Lexicon: R2= 57.7 %; R2adjusted = 56.1 % (F(4, 109) = 37.117, p< .001)
3. Which techniques in particular are related to
L2 lexical and grammar comprehension
of young L2 learners of English?
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 52
6. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHING TECHNIQUES
AND L2 COMPREHENSION
(Kersten 2012:35)
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 53
6. RESULTS: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNIQUES
AND L2 COMPREHENSION
(Kersten 2012:35)
Characteristics of Tasks / Activities:
Cognitive Stimulation of Learners' Realm of Experience
Cognitively
Stimulating Tasks / Activities L2
Grammar
L2
Lexikon
Tasks /
Activities …r r
1.
… focus on
meaningful content goals
.658**
.584**
2.
… focus on meaningful language use /* meaningful conversational goals
.057 .144
3.
…
are clearly introduced / explained .204* .050
4.
…
are modelled / demonstrated .203* .054
5.
… are explicitly
linked to their specific learning goals / learning objectives
.658**
.629**
6.
…
require specific linguistic elements
-
.574
**
-.443**
7.
… require
active problem-solving by the learners
.774**
.746**
8.
… are based on the
prior world knowledge of the learners
(i.e.. their everyday experiences)
.654**
.623**
9.
… include all learners actively at all times
-.338**
-
.239*
10.
… provide opportunities for genuine interactions between learners
-.449**
-.504**
11.
… provide opportunities for genuine output (language use) of the learners
.345**
.407**
12.
… are based on
authentic materials / realia / texts / auditory displays
.693**
.558**
13.
… and materials differ with respect to the diverse abilities of the
(groups of) learners (differentiation)
.475**
.261**
Note. +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .001; Cohen, 1988: │.1 │ = small; │.3 │ = medium; │.5 │ = large
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of HildesheimAILA 2021 Note. +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .001; Cohen, 1988: │.1 │ = small; │.3 │ = medium; │.5 │ = large 54
6. RESULTS: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNIQUES
AND L2 COMPREHENSION
Support of Comprehensible Input
Verbal Input
L2
Grammar
L2
Lexikon
The teacher …
r r
14.
… has a
high language proficiency in the L2
.618**
.565**
15.
… exclusively uses the L2 in class
.369**
.366**
16.
… provides a
high amount of L2 input
(i.e., uses L2 a lot to accompany all actions)
.583**
.524**
17.
…
uses varied L2 input
.838**
.770**
18.
…
uses recurring verbal routines / rituals
-.724**
-.718**
19.
... uses repetitions of key words and phrases
-.487**
-.369**
20.
… adapts the L2 input to different (groups of) learners
.344**
.165+
21.
...
articulates and enunciates clearly
.247**
.250**
22.
… slows down speech rate for selected contents
.160+ -.039
23.
… uses intonation to
stress key words / phrases in the L2
.686**
.675**
24.
… uses pauses to indicate key words / phrases in the L2
-.047 -.122
25.
…
uses comprehension checks
.800**
.710**
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 55
6. RESULTS: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNIQUES
AND L2 COMPREHENSION
Support of Comprehensible Input
Non
-Verbal Input L2
Grammar
L2
Lexikon
The teacher …
r r
26.
…
uses body language
.778**
.698**
27.
…
uses visual illustrations
-.422**
-.252**
28.
…
uses manipulatives (hands-on materials)
.475**
.261**
29.
… uses written labels / phrases / texts in the L2
.160+
.302**
30.
…
provides displays (words / phrases / materials) in the L2 within
the classroom .327*
.503**
Note. +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .001; Cohen, 1988: │.1 │ = small; │.3 │ = medium; │.5 │ = large
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of HildesheimAILA 2021
Note. +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .001; Cohen, 1988: │.1 │ = small; │.3 │ = medium; │.5 │ = large
a. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant. 56
6. RESULTS: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNIQUES
AND L2 COMPREHENSION
Support of Comprehensible Output:
Promoting and Reacting to the Learners' L2 Production
Support
of Learners' Output L2
Grammar
L2
Lexikon
The teacher …
r r
31.
… asks questions which
promote open answers
.485**
.505**
32.
… waits for learners' reactions / answers
.172+ .180+
33.
…
encourages the learners to use the L2
.766**
.626**
34.
… allows learners to code mix / use the L1 to compensate for gaps in the L2
-.086 -
.206*
35.
… allows learners to use alternative non
-verbal ways of expression -.017 -.152
36.
… provides prepared key vocabulary and phrases in the L2 for learners’
utterances
-.354**
-
.197*
37.
…
appreciates the learner's L2 production (i.e., their L2 language use)
.698**
.553**
38.
… corrects the learners' content errors
.a .a
39.
… corrects the learners' language errors
-
.201*
-
.236*
40.
… prompts learners' self
-correction during interaction
(i.e., encourages them to correct themselves) .215* .100
41.
… reacts to errors by
focusing on linguistic form
within a meaningful context
(i.e., at the moment the error occurs in a meaningful interaction)
-.553**
-.466**
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 57
6. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
HIGHEST SIGNIFICANT CORRELATIONS
INTEREST / VALUE / POSITIVE EMOTIONS
→HIGHER ATTENTION →HIGHER NOTICING
Tasks are based on the prior world knowledge of the learners .623
.654
Tasks focus on meaningful content goals .658.584
Tasks are based on authentic materials / realia / texts / auditory displays .558
.693
The teacher appreciates the learner's L2 production .553
.698
Grammar Lexicon
COGNITIVE STIMULATION /
ACTIVATING MANY BRAIN AREAS
Tasks require active problem-solving by the learners .746
.774
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 58
6. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
HIGHEST SIGNIFICANT CORRELATIONS
Grammar Lexicon
The teacher provides a high amount of L2 input .524.583
The teacher uses varied L2 input .770
.838
The teacher has a high language proficiency in the L2 .565.618
The teacher provides displays in the L2 within the classroom .698
HIGH QUALITY (FREQUENCY & VARIETY)
OF VERBAL INPUT
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 59
6. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
HIGHEST SIGNIFICANT CORRELATIONS
CLEAR STRUCTURING OF THE LESSONS / INPUT
→SALIENCE
Tasks are explicitly linked to their specific learning goals / objectives .629
.658
The teacher uses comprehension checks .710.800
The teacher uses intonation to stress key words / phrases in the L2 .675
.686
The teacher uses body language .698.778
Grammar Lexicon
SUPPPORT OF COMPREHENSIBILITY
AILA 2021 Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 60
6. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
HIGHEST SIGNIFICANT CORRELATIONS
SUPPORT FOR BEGINNING LEARNERS:
GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF SCAFFOLDING
The teacher uses recurring verbal routines / rituals -.718
-.724
The teacher reacts to errors by focusing on linguistic form within a meaningful context
-.553
Tasks require specific linguistic elements
-.574
Tasks provide opportunities for genuine interactions between learners -.504
Grammar Lexicon
The teacher encourages the learners to use the L2 .626
.766
SUPPORT FOR OUTPUT (OUTPUT HYPOTHESIS)
The teacher asks questions which promote open answers .503
the TIOS captures differences between teachers, with IM teachers using significantly more
techniques than EFL teachers
EVEN THOUGH techniques are derived from foreign language teaching frameworks in general
TIOS total score significantly predicts L2 grammar and lexical comprehension across learners
with a wide range of L2 competences
at the scale level, Task Characteristics significantly predicts grammatical L2 comprehension;
lexical L2 comprehension is significantly predicted by all scales except Verbal Input (p= .067)
on an item basis, items that include cognitive stimulation show strong positive relationships
with both L2 grammar and lexicon
items which mainly foster comprehension on a beginner level have a strong negative
relationship with L2 comprehension
cross-sectional design: we can not establish the direction of effects:
instead of assuming a negative effect of these items on
language learning, teachers might use more scaffolding
for comprehension for the beginning learners in this data set
the chicken or egg causality dilemma: we do not know which is the cause or which is the effect
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 61
7. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
AILA 2021
?
possible artifacts:
observations / ratings and their interpretation are always subjective to a
certain extent
Hawthorne effect (change of behavior due to videography)
change of teachers in some classes over time
other influential factors not included at this time
data analysis of a larger and longitudinal data set
further statistical analyses
(multilevel modeling, structural equation modeling)
look especially at differential picture concerning influence on
early and later stages of L2 acquisition and programs
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 62
7. LIMITATIONS / IMPLICATIONS
AILA 2021
different scaffolding techniques are required for different
language levels
results support the relevance of cognitively stimulating input
knowledge can help us provide enriched language
environments in the L2 classrooms
AND, arguably, for ESL learners in majority language
classrooms
CONCLUSION
AILA 2021 63
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 64
PROJECTS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
And many thanks go to:
Imke Blank, Lisa Bode, Katrin Bürger, Svenja Frömming,
Esther Maier, Larissa Mielke, Katharina Vilbrandt, and
many student research assistants!
*funded by MWK Niedersachsen, VW-Vorab
*funded by MWK Niedersächsisches Vorab
Marie Adler Julia Böhnke
Laureen Gallwitz Werner GreveAlina Wegner
Martin Koch
Lisanne Conradi Valerie Lietzau
AILA 2021
Ann-Christin Bruhn, annchristin.bruhn@uni-hildesheim.de
Katharina Ponto & katharina.ponto@uni-hildesheim.de
Kristin Kersten kristin.kersten@uni-hildesheim.de
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 65
AILA 2021
Related Sources:
Kersten, K. , Bruhn, A.-C.,
Schriek, J., Ponto, K., Böhnke, J.,
Greve, W. (in prep.)
"Operationalizing foreign
language teaching strategies in
primary school classrooms."
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
Aukrust, V.G. (2007). Young children acquiring second language vocabulary in preschool group‐time: Does amount, diversity, and discourse
complexity of teacher talk matter? Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22, 17‐37.
Baker, C., Wright, W.E. (2017). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (6th ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Blank, I. (2017). Subjective theories of headmasters about bilingual programmes in primary school. Unpublished MA Thesis. Hildesheim
University.
Böttger, H. (2014). Grundschulgerechte Englischhausaufgaben. In H. Böttger (ed.), Englisch Didaktik für die Grundschule. Berlin: Cornelsen, 194-
197.
Böttger, H. (2016). Neurodidaktik des frühen Sprachenlernens. Wo die Sprache zuhause ist. Stuttgart: UTB.
Bournot-Trites, M., Reeder, K. (2001). Interdependence revisited: Mathematics achievement in an intensified French immersion program. The
Canadian Modern Language Review 58(1), 27-43.
Breidbach, S. (2016). Inhaltsorientierung. In Burwitz-Melzer, E., Mehlhorn, G., Riemer, C., Bausch, K.-R., Krumm, H.-J. (ed.), Handbuch
Fremdsprachenunterricht (6. Auflage). Tübingen: A. Francke, 330-335.
Brohy, C. (2001). Generic and/or specific advantages of bilingualism in a dynamic plurilingual situation. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 4(1), 38-49.
Bronfenbrenner, U., Morris, P.A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In Lerner, R.M. (ed.), Handbook of Child Development:
Vol. 1. Theoretical Models of Human Development. 6. Aufl. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 793–828.
Bruhn, A.-C., Kersten, K. (2018). Operationalizing teacher input: Empirical evidence on the effect of input on the L2 acquisition of young learners.
Conference paper at EUROSLA: University of Münster.
Burchinal, M., Cryer, D., Clifford, R.M., Howes, C. (2002). Caregiver training and classroom quality in child care centers. Applied Developmental
Sciences 6, 2–11.
Burmeister, P. (2006). Frühbeginnende Immersion. In U.O.H. Jung (eds.), Praktische Handreichungen für Fremdsprachenlehrer. Frankfurt a.M.:
Peter Lang, 385-391.
Burmeister, P., Ewig, M. (2010). Integrating science and foreign language learning. In U. Massler, P. Burmeister (eds.), CLIL und Immersion:
Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann, 61-75.
Burmeister, P., Massler, U. (eds.). CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachiger Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann.
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 66
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AILA 2021
Cenoz, J., Valencia, J.F. (1994). Additive trilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics 15,195.
Conradi, L., Lietzau, V. (2019). Operationalizing Teacher Input in Bilingual and EFL Classrooms. Unpublished MA Thesis. Hildesheim University.
Couve de Murville, S., Kersten, K., Maier, E., Ponto, K., Weitz, M. (2016). Rezeptiver L2 Wortschatz in der Grundschule. In A.K. Steinlen, T. Piske
(eds.), Wortschatzlernen in bilingualen Schulen und Kindertagesstätten. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 85-121.
Couve de Murville, S., Lenz, F. (2012). Englisch als Unterrichtssprache: Lernstandserhebungen in einer immersiven Grundschule. In Lenz, F. (ed.),
Bilinguales Lernen: Unterrichtskonzepte zur Förderung sachfachbezogener und interkultureller Kompetenz. Frankfurt a.M: Peter Lang, 79-
102.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (2000). The threshold and interdependence hypotheses revisited. In J. Cummins (ed.), Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual
Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, 173-200.
Dallinger, S., Jonkmann, K., Hollm, J., Fiege, C. (2016). The effect of content and language integrated learning on students’ English and history
competences –Killing two birds with one stone? Learning and Instruction 41,23-31.
de Bot (2008). Second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal 92(2), 166-178.
De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual First Language Acquisition. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2013). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie, T.K. Bhatia (eds.), The New Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition. Leiden: Brill, 623-646.
Diehr, B. (2012). What’s in a name? Terminologische, typologische und programmatische Überlegungen zum Verhältnis der Sprachen im
Bilingualen Unterricht. In Diehr, B., Schmelter, L. (ed.), Bilingualen Unterricht weiterdenken: Programme, Positionen, Perspektiven.
Frankfurt a.M: Peter Lang, 17-36.
Doff, S. (2016). Vermittlungsmethoden: Historischer Überblick. In Burwitz-Melzer, E., Mehlhorn, G., Riemer, C., Bausch, K.-R., Krumm, H.-J. (ed.),
Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht (6. Auflage). Tübingen: A. Francke, 320-325. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2019.1696879
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. Language Learning 59(1), 230-248.
Dörnyei, Z., Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York, London: Routledge.
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 67
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AILA 2021
Dörnyei, Z., Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In Long, M.H. (ed.), The handbook of second language
acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 589-630.
Dunn, L.M., Dunn, L.M., Whetton, C., Burley, J. (1997). British Picture Vocabulary Scale (2nd ed.). Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Dunn, L.M., Dunn, D.M., Styles, B., Sewell, J. (2009). The British Picture Vocabulary Scale (3rd edition). London: GL Assessmt.
Echevarría, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Canges, R., Francis, D. (2011). Using the SIOP model to promote the acquisition of language and science
concepts with English learners. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education 34(3), 334-
351.
Echevarría, J., Short, D.J., Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: An instructional model for English language
learners. Journal of Educational Research 99(4), 195-210.
Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., Short, D.J. (2010). Making Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP Model (third
edition). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Eisenmann, M. (2014). Binnendifferenzierung im Englischunterricht –Chancen und Herausforderungen. In Gehring, W., Merkl, M. (ed.), Englisch
lehren, lernen, erforschen. Oldenburg: BIS-Verl. der Carl-von-Ossietzky-Univ, 11-28.
Ellis, N.C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2), 143‐188.
Ellis, R. (2003). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Routledge.
Elsner, D. (2007). Hörverstehen im Englischunterricht der Grundschule: Ein Leistungsvergleich zwischen Kindern mit Deutsch als Muttersprache
und Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
Fortune, Tara (2000). Immersion Teaching Strategies Observation Checklist. ACIE Newsletter, 4(1), 1-4.
Fortune, Tara (2014). Immersion Teaching Strategies Observation Checklist (rev.). Minneapolis: Center for Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition. Retrieved December 4th, 2018, from http://carla.umn.edu/immersion/checklist.pdf
Fukkink, R.G., Lont, A. (2007). Does training matter? A meta-analysis and review of caregiver training studies. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly,22(3), 294–311.
Gass, S.M., Mackey, A. (2002). Frequency effects and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2), 249-260.
Gass, S.M., Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B., Williams, J. (ed.), Theories in
second language acquisition (2nd edition). New York: Routledge, 180-206.
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 68
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AILA 2021
Gebauer, S.K., Zaunbauer, A.C.M., Möller, J. (2012). Erstsprachliche Leistungsentwicklung im Immersionsunterricht: Vorteile trotz Unterrichts in
einer Fremdsprache? Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie,26(3), 183-196.
Gebauer, S.K., Zaunbauer, A.C.M., Möller, J. (2013). Cross-language transfer in English immersion programmes in Germany: Reading
comprehension and reading fluency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(1), 64-74.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Newbury house.
Genesee, F. (2007). French immersion and at-risk students: A review of research evidence. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(5), 655–
688.
Genesee, F., Hamayan, E. (1980). Individual differences in second language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1(1), 95-110.
Graham, S., Courtney, L., Marinis, T. (2017). Early language learning: The impact of teaching and teacher factors. Language Learning 67(4), 922-
958.
Harms, T., Clifford, R.M., Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Harms, T., Cryer, D., Clifford, R.M. (2006). Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised Edition Manual. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Hasselhorn, M., Gold, A. (2006). Pädagogische Psychologie: Erfolgreiches Lernen und Lehren. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Hatch, E., Wagner-Gogh, J. (1976). Explaining sequence and variation in second language acquisition. Language Learning Special Issue 4, 39-57.
Hesse, H.G., Göbel, K., Hartig, J. (2008). Sprachliche Kompetenzen von mehrsprachigen Jugendlichen und Jugendlichen nicht-deutscher
Erstsprache. In E. Klieme (ed.), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Ergebnisse der DESI Studie. Weinheim und
Basel: Beltz, 208-230.
Hopp, H., Kieseier, T., Vogelbacher, M., Thoma, D. (2018). Einflüsse und Potenziale der Mehrsprachigkeit im Englischerwerb in der Primarstufe.
In Mehlhorn, G., Brehmer, B. (eds.), Potenziale von Herkunftssprachen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 57-80.
Hopp, H., Kieseier, T., Vogelbacher, M., Thoma, D. (forthc.). Cognitive and linguistic profiles in early foreign language vocabulary and grammar.
In Piske, T., Steinlen, A.K. (ed.), Cognition and second language acquisition. Tübingen: Narr.
Housen, A. (2012). Time and amount of L2 contact inside and outside the school - insights from the European schools. In Muñoz, C. (ed.),
Intensive exposure experiences in second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 111-140.
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 69
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AILA 2021
Howes, C. (1997). Children’s experiences in center- based child care as a function of teacher background and adult:child ratio. Merrill Palmer
Quarterly,43(3), 404–425.
Husfeldt, V., Bader Lehmann, U. (2009). Englisch an der Primarschule. Lernstandserhebung am im Kanton Aargau. Institut für Forschung und
Entwicklung.
Jaekel, N., van Ackern, I., Schurig, M., Ritter, M. (2018). Investigating the long-term effects of early foreign language learning from elementary
school into 9th grade. Paper presented at EUROSLA 28, Universität Münster.
Jessner, U. (2008). Teaching third languages: Findings, trends and challenges. Language Teaching,41(1), 15-56.
Johnson, R.K., Swain, M. (1994). From core to content: Bridging the L2 proficiency gap in late immersion. Language and Education 8(4), 211-
229.
Johnstone, R. (2002). Immersion in a second or additional language at school: A review of the international research. Stirling: Scottish Centre
for Information on Language Teaching.
Kersten, K. (2009a). Profiling child ESL acquisition: practical and methodological issues. In J.-U. Keßler, D. Keatinge (eds.), Research in Second
Language Acquisition: Empirical Evidence Across Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press, 267-294.
Kersten, K. (2009b).Verbal Inflections in L2 Child Narratives: A Study of Lexical Aspect & Grounding. Trier: WVT.
Kersten, K. (2012). Fremdsprachenerwerb im Kindesalter: Forschungsergebnisse aus bilingualen Kitas. In Lenz, F. (ed.), Bilinguales Lernen:
Unterrichtskonzepte zur Förderung sachfachbezogener und interkultureller Kompetenz. Frankfurt a.M: Peter Lang, 25-56.
Kersten, K. (2015). Bilingual Pre-Primary Schools: Language Acquisition, Intercultural Encounters and Environmental Learning,29-45.
Kersten, K. (2018). The role of the teacher and other factors affecting bilingual learning. Conference Paper at didacta: FMKS:
Kersten, K. (2019). Einflussfaktoren im bilingualen Fremdsprachenerwerb. In A. Rohde, A.K. Steinlen (eds.), Sprachenvielfalt als Ressource
begreifen: Mehrsprachigkeit in bilingualen Kindertagesstätten und Schulen (Band II).Berlin: dohrmann, 35-70.
Kersten, K. (2020). The interplay of cognitive, linguistic and instructional factors in early language acquisition. Paper presented at the
Interdisciplinary Symposium Variables Affecting (Language) Learning Processes), Hildesheim University, January 17,2020.
Kersten, K. (angenommen). Proximity of Stimulation: Investigating the interplay of cognitive, linguistic and instructional factors in early
language acquisition. In K. Kersten, A. Winsler (eds.), Interplay of Variables in Cognitive-Linguistic Development - A Multi-Layered
Perspective.
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 70
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AILA 2021
Kersten, K., Bruhn, A.-C., Böhnke, J., Ponto, K., Greve, W. (forthc.). Operationalizing foreign language teaching strategies in primary school
classrooms. Hildesheim University.
Kersten, K., Bruhn, A.-C., Ponto, K., Böhnke, J., Greve, W. (2018a). Teacher Input Observation Scheme (TIOS). Studies on Multilingualism in
Language Education, 4, Hildesheim University.
Kersten, K., Greve, W. (angenommen). Investigating influencing factors of cognitive-linguistic development in SLA: Challenges for empirical
research. In K. Kersten, A. Winsler (eds.), Interplay of Variables in Cognitive-Linguistic Development - A Multi-Layered Perspective.
Kersten, K., Piske, T., Rohde, A., Steinlen, A.K., Weitz, M., Couve de Murville, S., Kurth, S. (2012). ELIAS Grammar Test II.Studies on
Multilingualism in Language Education, 1, Hildesheim University.
Kersten, K., Rohde, A. (2013). On the road to nowhere: The transition problem of bilingual teaching programmes. In Elsner, D., Keßler, J.-U.
(ed.), Bilingual Learning and CLIL in Primary School. Tübingen: Narr, 93-117.
Kersten, K., Rohde, A. (2015). Immersion teaching in English with young learners. In J. Bland (eds.), Teaching English Language to Young
Learners: Critical Issues in Language Teaching with 3-12 Year Olds. London: Bloomsbury, 71-89.
Kersten, K., Rohde, A., Schelletter, C., Steinlen, A.K. (eds., 2010). Bilingual Preschools. Vol. I: Learning and Development. Trier: WVT.
Kersten, K., Steinlen, A.-K., Schüle, C. (2018b). The effect of L2 input and cognitively stimulating tasks on second language acquisition. Paper
presented at EUROSLA 28, University of Münster.
Kersten, K., Steinlen, A.K., Schüle, C., (submitted). The effect of internal and external variables on early foreign language acquisition: Evidence
from bilingual preschools.
Klieme, E., Eichler, W., Helmke, A., Lehmann, R.H., Nold, G., Rolff, H.‐G., Schröder, K., Thomé, G., Willenberg, H. (2006). Unterricht und
Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Zentrale Befunde der Studie Deutsch Englisch Schülerleistungen International (DESI).
Frankfurt a.M.: DIPF.
Klippel, F. (2016). Didaktische und methodische Prinzipien der Vermittlung. In Burwitz-Melzer, E., Mehlhorn, G., Riemer, C., Bausch, K.-R.,
Krumm, H.-J. (ed.), Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht (6. Auflage). Tübingen: A. Francke, 315-320.
KMK (2006). Konzepte für den bilingualen Unterricht –Erfahrungsbericht und Vorschläge zur Weiterentwicklung. Bericht des Schulausschusses
vom 10.04.2006. Bonn: Kultusministerkonferenz.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Lasagabaster, D., Sierra, J.M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal 64(4), 367-375.
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 71
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AILA 2021
Laurie, S.S. (1890). Lectures on Language and Linguistic Method in the School. Delivered in the University of Cambridge, Easter Term 1889.
Cambridge: University Press.
Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits of French immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(5), 605-627.
Lee, P. (1996). Cognitive development in bilingual children: A case for bilingual instruction in early childhood education. Bilingual Research
Journal 20(3-4), 499-522.
Lightbown, P.M. (2014). Making the minutes count in L2 teaching. Language Awareness 23, 3-23.
Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1(1),
14-29.
Loewen, S., Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching 51(3), 285-329.
Long, M.H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379,259-278.
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie, T.K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition. New York: Academic Press, 413‐468.
Long, M.H. (2015). Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Long, M.H., Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In Doughty, C.J.S., Williams, J. (ed.), Focus on form in classroom
second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 15-41.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R., Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(2), 269-300.
Lyster, R., Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta‐analysis.Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2), 265‐302.
Maier, E. (2013). The Quality of Teacher Input in Different Classroom Settings. Unpublished MA Thesis. Hildesheim University.
Maier, E., Neubauer, L., Ponto, K., Couve de Murville, S., Kersten, K. (2016). Assessing linguistic levels of L2 English in primary programs. In J.-U.
Keßler, A. Lenzing, M. Liebner (eds.), Developing, Modelling and Assessing Second Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 163-192.
Marsh, D., Langé, G. (eds.) (2000). Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages. An Introduction to Content and Language
Integrated Learning for Parents and Young People. Jyväskylä: Univ. of Jyväskylä.
Massler, U., Ioannou Georgiou, S. (2010). Best practice: How CLIL works. In Burmeister, P., Massler, U. (ed.), CLIL und Immersion:
Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule. Braunschweig: Westermann, 61-75.
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 72
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AILA 2021
Mehisto, P. (2012). CLIL considerations: Co-constructing favorable context for CLIL. In Eisenmann, M., Summer, T. (ed.), Basic issues in EFL
teaching and learning. Heidelberg: Winter, 285-296.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., Frigols, M.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education.
Oxford: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Meinke, S., Meisner, S. (2016). Attitudes of elementary school children towards Content-And-Language-Integrated-Learning (CLIL). Unpublished
MA Thesis. Hildesheim University.
Mielke, L. (2013). Assessing Teacher Input in Primary School. Unpublished MA Thesis. Hildesheim University.
Muñoz, C. (2000). Bilingualism and trilingualism in school students in Catalonia. In Cenoz, J., Jessner, U. (ed.), English in Europe: The acquisition
of a third language. Clevedon et al.: Multilingual Matters, 157-178.
Muñoz, C. (2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF project. In Muñoz, C. (ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language
learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 1-40.
Muñoz, C. (2014). Contrasting effects of starting age and input on the oral performance of foreign language learners. Applied Linguistics 35,
463-482.
Murphy, V. (2014). Second language learning in the early school years: Trends and contexts. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Murphy, V.A. (2018). Literacy development in linguistically diverse pupils. In D. Miller, F. Bayram, J. Rothman, L. Serratrice (eds.), Bilingual
Cognition and Language: The State of the Science Across Its Subfields. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 155–182.
Myles, F. (2017). Learning foreign languages in primary schools: Is younger better? Languages, Society & Policy,
https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9806.
OECD (2010). PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background: Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (Vol II).
OECD (2016). PISA 2015 Ergebnisse im Fokus. (www.oecd.org/pisa)
Paradis, J., Grüter, T. (2014). Introduction to “Input and experience in bilingual development.”In T. Grüter, J. Paradis (eds.), Input and
Experience in Bilingual Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Peal, E., Lambert, W. W. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to
intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 76(27), 1-23.
Paradis, J., Rusk, B., Sorenson Duncan, T., Govindarajan, K. (2017). Children’s second language acquisition of English complex syntax. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 37,148-167.
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 73
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AILA 2021
Peregoy, S. F. (1991). Environmental scaffolds and learner responses in a two-way Spanish immersion kindergarten. Canadian Modern Language
Review,47(3), 463-476.
Phillips, D.A., Gormley, W.T. , Lowenstein, A.E. (2009). Inside the pre- kindergarten door: Classroom climate and instructional time allocation in
Tulsa’s Pre- K Programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,24(3), 213–228.
Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K. M., Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System Manual: Pre- K. Baltimore: Brookes.
Pianta, Robert C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., Barbarin, O. (2005). Features of pre-kindergarten programs,
classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child-teacher interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9,
144-159.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language
Learning,44,493-527.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics 10(1), 52-79.
Richards, J. C., Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rohde, A. (2010). Receptive L2 lexical knowledge in bilingual preschool children. In Kersten, K., Rohde, A., Schelletter, C., Steinlen, A.K. (ed.),
Bilingual preschools: Learning and development (Vol. 1). Trier: WVT, 45-68.
Rotter, D. (2015): Der Focus-on-Form-Ansatz in der Sprachförderung. Eine empirische Untersuchung der Lehrer-Lernende-Interaktion im DaZ-
Grundschulkontext. Münster: Waxmann.
Rumlich, D. (2019). Bilingual education in monolingual contexts: a comparative perspective. The Language Learning Journal,
Saito, K., Hanzawa, K. (2018). The role of input in second language oral ability development in foreign language classrooms: A longitudinal
study. Language Teaching Research 22(4), 398-417.
Sanz, C. (2000). Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics 21(1), 23-44.
Schäfer, U. (2015). Inklusives Lehren und Lernen im Englischunterricht. In C. M. Bongartz, A. Rohde (eds.), Inklusion im Englischunterricht.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 57-69.
Schmid-Schönbein, G. (2010). Vorhersagbar und Lustbetont. Rituale als sichere Inseln. Grundschulmagazin Englisch, 3, 6-8.
Sheen, R. (2002). ‘Focus on form’and ‘focus on forms’.ELT Journal,56(3), 303-305.
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 74
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AILA 2021
Snow, M.A. (1990). Instructional methodology in immersion foreign language education. Foreign Language Education: Issues and Strategies,
156-171.
Spada, N., Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT - communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and
applications: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
Steinlen, A.K., Håkansson, G., Housen, A., Schelletter, C. (2010). Receptive L2 grammar knowledge development in bilingual preschools. In
Kersten, K., Rohde, A., Schelletter, C., Steinlen, A.K. (ed.), Bilingual preschools: Learning and development (Vol. 1). Trier: WVT, 70-100.
Steinlen, A.K., Kersten, K., Piske, T. (2019). Mehrsprachige Jungen als Problemfall in bilingualen Kitas? Zur Rolle von Geschlecht und
sprachlichem Hintergrund. In A. Rohde, A.K. Steinlen (eds.), Sprachenvielfalt als Ressource begreifen: Mehrsprachigkeit in bilingualen
Kindertagesstätten und Schulen (Band II).Berlin: dohrmann, 71-88.
Steinlen, A.K., Piske, T. (2013). Academic achievement of children with and without migration backgrounds in an immersion primary school: A
pilot study. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 61(3), 215-244.
Steinlen, A.K., Piske, T. (2016). Minority Language Students as At-Risk Learners: Myth or Reality? Findings from an early German-English partial
immersion program. In C. Ehland, I. Mindt, M. Tönnies (eds.), Anglistentag Paderborn 2015 –Proceedings of the Conference of the
German Association of University Teachers of English, Vol. 37.Trier: WVT: 9-28.
Steinlen, A.K., Schwanke, K., Piske, T. (2015). Die Entwicklung des rezeptiven englischen Wortschatzes von Kindern mit und ohne
Migrationshintergrund in bilingualen Kitas und Schulen sowie im Fremdsprachenunterricht. In Linke, G., Schmidt, K. (ed.), Immersion
und bilingualer Unterricht (Englisch): Erfahrungen - Entwicklungen - Perspektiven. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren, 175-208.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass,
S.M., Madden, C. (ed.), Input in second language acquisition. Boston, Mass.: Heinle & Heinle, 235-253.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G., Seidlhofer, B. (ed.), Principle and practice in applied
linguistics. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 125-144.
Swain, M., Johnson, R.K. (1997) Immersion education: a category within bilingual education. In R.K. Johnson and M. Swain (eds.), Immersion
Education: International Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, 1-16.
Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B. (2003). Assessing Quality in the Early Years: Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Extension (ECERS-
E), Four Curricular Subscales. Stoke-on Trent: Trentham Books.
Ting, Y.L.T. (2011). CLIL …not only not immersion but also more than the sum of its parts. ELT Journal 63(3), 314-317.
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 75
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AILA 2021
Tomlinson, C.A., Moon, T.R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, Va: ASCD.
Trebits, A., Adler, M., Kersten, K., Ponto, K. (eingereicht). Cognitive gains and socioeconomic status in early second language acquisition in
immersion and EFL learning settings.
Truscott, J., Smith, M.S. (2019). The Internal Context of Bilingual Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ullmann, R., Geva, E. (1982). The Target Language Observation Scheme (TALOS). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Unsworth, S., Persson, L., Prins, T., Bot, K. de (2014). An investigation of factors affecting early foreign language learning in the Netherlands.
Applied Linguistics 36(5), 527–548.
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student Interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology
Review 22(3), 271-296.
Wegner, A. (forthc.). Die Implementierung von CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) an der Grundschule: Eine
methodenintegrierende Untersuchung zu Einflussfaktoren bei der Umsetzung bilingualer Unterrichtskonzepte. Hildesheim University.
Wegner, A., Kersten, K. (forthc.). Factors influencing the implementation of bilingual programmes. Hildesheim University.
Weitz, M. (2015). Die Rolle des L2‐Inputs in bilingualen Kindergärten. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
Weitz, M., Pahl, S., Flyman Mattsson, A., Buyl, A., Kalbe, E. (2010). The Input Quality Observation Scheme (IQOS): The nature of L2 input and its
influence on L2 development in bilingual preschools. In K. Kersten, A. Rohde, C. Schelletter, A.K. Steinlen (eds.), Bilingual Preschools:
Learning and Development (Vol. 1). Trier: WVT, 5‐44.
Werkmeister, N. (2015). The relation between cognitive variables and receptive second language skills. Studies on Multilingualism in Language
Education, 2,Hildesheim University.
Wesche, M. B. (2002). Early French immersion: How has the original Canadian model stood the test of time? In P. Burmeister, T. Piske, A. Rohde
(eds.), An Integrated View of Language Development: Papers in Honor of Henning Wode. Trier: WVT, 357-379.
Wiater, W. (2001). Unterrichtsprinzipien. Donauwörth: Auer Verlag.
Wilden, E., Porsch, R. (2015). Die Hör- und Leseverstehensleistungen im Fach Englisch von Kindern am Ende der Grundschulzeit unter
besonderer Berücksichtigung von lebensweltlicher Ein- und Mehrsprachigkeit. In M. Kötter, J. Rymarczyk (eds.), Englischunterricht auf
der Primarstufe. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 59-80.
Wildhage, M. (2000). Bilingualer Unterricht in Niedersachsen. Neusprachliche Mitteilungen aus Wissenschaft und Praxis,53(4), 212-219.
Winner, A. (2007). Kleinkinder ergreifen das Wort: Sprachförderung mit Kindern von 0-4 Jahren. Mannheim: Cornelsen Scriptor.
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 76
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AILA 2021
Wode, H. (1995). Lernen in der Fremdsprache: Grundzüge von Immersion und bilingualem Unterricht. Ismaning: Hueber.
Wolff, D. (1994). Der Konstruktivismus: Ein neues Paradigma in der Fremdsprachendidaktik? Die Neueren Sprachen 93(5), 407-429.
Wolff, D. (2002a). Fremdsprachenlernen als Konstruktion: Einige Anmerkungen zu einem viel diskutierten neuen Ansatz in der
Fremdsprachendidaktik. Babylonia 4, 7-14.
Wolff, D. (2002b). Fremdsprachenlernen als Konstruktion: Grundlagen für eine konstruktivistische Fremdsprachendidaktik. Frankfurt a.M: Peter
Lang.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines
17,89-100.
Zaade, S. (2014). Multisensorisch Englisch lernen. In H. Böttger (Ed.), Englisch Didaktik für die Grundschule. Berlin: Cornelsen, 40-48.
Zaunbauer, A., Möller, J. (2006). Schriftsprachliche und mathematische Leistungen in der Erstsprache: Ein Vergleich monolingual und
teilimmersiv unterrichteter Kinder der zweiten und dritten Klassenstufe. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung,17,181-200.
Zaunbauer, A., Möller, J. (2010). Schulleistungsentwicklung immersiv unterrichteter Grundschüler in den ersten zwei Schuljahren. Psychologie in
Erziehung und Unterricht,84,30-45.
Bruhn, Ponto & Kersten, University of Hildesheim 77
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AILA 2021
