Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/319123561
''I can you help?'' Assessing speaking skills and interaction strategies of
young learners
CITATIONS READS
5 393
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Sprachliche Orientierung, Sprachkompetenzen und Schulerfolg albanischsprachiger Kinder in der Deutschschweiz unter der Leitung von Prof. Dr. Dr. Basil Schader,
Pädagogische Hochschule Zürich, Schweiz View project
Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural Societies (MIRIPS network) - Swiss study View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Andrea Haenni Hoti on 15 August 2017.
3
interaction strategies of young learners
4
6
Andrea Haenni Hoti, Sybille Heinzmann, and
7 Marianne Müller
8
10
11
1. Educational policy regarding foreign language instruction
12 in Switzerland
13
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 119)
120 Andrea Haenni Hoti, Sybille Heinzmann, and Marianne Müller
1 established with the primary school children learning English (L2) from
2 3rd grade onwards and French (L3) from 5th grade onwards. Hence, for
3 the majority of the children who grow up monolingual speaking (Swiss)
4 German, English constitutes the first and French the second foreign lan-
5 guage learnt.
6 The di¤erent cantons involved in this study di¤er both in terms of
7 the amount of lessons allotted for the teaching of FL as well as in terms
8 of teaching materials used. In Obwalden, Zug, and Lucerne English
9 instruction starts with three lessons per week for 3rd graders and the
10 pupils work with Young World (Klett-Verlag). In Schwyz 3rd graders
11 have two lessons of English per week and work with Here Comes Super
12 Bus (Macmillan Publishers). A content analysis of the di¤erent course
13 books warrants the conclusion that in terms of its didactic approach
14 English instruction in 3rd grade is still characterized as subject teaching,
15 even though some indications of Content and Language Integrated
16 Learning (CLIL) can be found (see Weskamp 2003: 39).
17 The conceptual innovation of FL teaching in primary schools con-
18 sists mainly in the explicitness and commitment with which teaching is
19 oriented towards a communicative approach and towards the goal of
20 functional plurilingualism, on the one hand, and in the combination of
21 linguistic, intercultural, and instrumental (communication and learning
22 strategies) educational goals, on the other hand (Bildungsplanung Zen-
23 tralschweiz 2004: 3–22; Werlen 2006: 11). Erika Werlen characterizes
24 foreign language competence of primary school children as ‘‘[d]ie Hal-
25 tung, Sprachen lernen zu wollen und sich in der Zielsprache verständi-
26 gen zu wollen, und die interaktive Kompetenz, sich in der Zielsprache
27 verständlich zu machen’’ [the willingness to learn languages and to com-
28 municate in the target language and the interactive competence of mak-
29 ing oneself understood in the target language] (2006: 11). This idea is re-
30 flected in the teaching principles of FL instruction in primary schools in
31 Switzerland insofar as the development of interaction and learning strat-
32 egies, which are considered central for the build-up of communicative
33 competence, are considered more important than grammatical and pho-
34 netic accuracy (Haenni Hoti and Werlen 2007: 141).
35
36
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 120)
Assessing speaking skills and interaction strategies of young learners 121
32
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 121)
122 Andrea Haenni Hoti, Sybille Heinzmann, and Marianne Müller
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 122)
Assessing speaking skills and interaction strategies of young learners 123
1 tures. In parts one and two each child interacted with the interviewer
2 singly. Part three was a paired speaking task in which the two children
3 interacted with each other and carried out a role-play (shopping in a
4 grocery or eating in a restaurant). All the tests were video-recorded.
5 Interacting in a foreign language is a multi-facetted activity and suc-
6 cessful interaction requires a variety of skills, such as mastery of the lin-
7 guistic code (vocabulary, syntax, phonology), strategic skills and social
8 skills. An assessment of children’s interaction skills, therefore, necessar-
9 ily has to take di¤erent dimensions into account. We analyzed the video-
10 tapes according to the following four dimensions:
11
1) task fulfillment
12
2) interaction strategies
13
3) complexity of utterances
14
4) vocabulary range.
15
30
31
32
3. Results
33
36 This section will outline to what extent the 3rd graders were able to ful-
37 fill the tasks set in the oral interaction test and by implication to what
38 extent they can be said to have attained the study aims of the curricu-
39 lum. The tasks will be assigned to di¤erent study aims and the results
40 will be illustrated with examples (I ¼ Interviewer; S ¼ Student):
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 123)
124 Andrea Haenni Hoti, Sybille Heinzmann, and Marianne Müller
5 In the first part of the test the children were required to answer a series
6 of questions about themselves. The task was considered fulfilled if the
7 child could provide a comprehensible, situation-adequate answer with-
8 out requiring any assistance from the interviewer, partially fulfilled if
9 he or she required assistance and not fulfilled if he or she could not pro-
10 vide a satisfactory answer despite assistance from the interviewer. These
11 specifications reflect our conceptualization of learning progress as
12 becoming increasingly independent of contextual and situational cues
13 as well as of direct assistance by the interlocutor (Werlen 2006: 13).
14 Ninety-three percent of the children could return the interviewer’s
15 greeting in comprehensible English (S: Hello.) and all the children
16 (100%) were able to say their name without requiring assistance from
17 the interviewer. Furthermore, the children were asked about their age
18 (I: How old are you?), their place of origin (I: Where are you from?),
19 and their address (I: What’s your address?): Forty-three percent of the
20 children could say how old they are without needing help from the inter-
21 viewer (S: Nine.). Another 46% needed help from the interviewer in
22 order to be able to answer the question and have, consequently, par-
23 tially fulfilled the task. They were able to say how old they were after
24 the interviewer had modelled the answer for them (I: I’m thirty-five
25 years old. And you? S: Nine.). About every tenth child (11%) was unable
26 to provide an answer in English despite assistance from the interviewer.
27 That is to say he or she either did not understand the question or
28 answered in German. Fifty-nine percent of the children could say where
29 they come from without requiring assistance (S: I’m from Switzerland.)
30 and 27% could do so with help from the interviewer (I: I’m from
31 Lucerne. And you? S: Er, I am from, er, Sarnen.). The remaining 14%
32 were unable to (partially) fulfill the task.
33 The most demanding task for the children was giving their address,
34 which only 18% (short of every 5th child) could do without help. This
35 is due to the fact that many children misunderstood the question as
36 ‘‘what’s your dress?’’ Modelling of the answer by the interviewer, how-
37 ever, eliminated this misunderstanding and 79% were subsequently able
38 to give a context-adequate answer, thereby partially fulfilling the task
39 (I: My address is Zentralstrasse number ten in Lucerne. S: Er, my address
40 ist Bergstrasse elf in L.). Only 3% of the children did not fulfill the task.
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 124)
Assessing speaking skills and interaction strategies of young learners 125
14
3.1.2. Study aim: ‘‘can answer simple questions dealing with familiar
15
topics’’ (A1.1 Level)
16
17 The topics ‘food and drink’ as well as ‘time’ were part of the English
18 curriculum in the 3rd grade and could, consequently, be assumed to
19 constitute familiar topics for the children. Almost half of the children
20 (48%) could name their favourite food (I: What do you like to eat? S:
21 Pizza, spaghetti and lasagne.). Thirty-five percent needed verbal or non-
22 verbal (gesture and mimics) help by the interviewer to do so. The next
23 question by the interviewer ‘‘What do you like to drink?’’ seems to have
24 been predictable for the children, as 87% could provide a direct, satisfac-
25 tory answer. Next the children were asked at what time they go to bed
26 and get up. More than four out of five children (82%) could say when
27 they go to bed without needing help (S: Er a quarter past nine.) and no
28 less than 94% could say what time they get up without help (I: What
29 time do you get up in the morning? S: Er seven. I: At seven? S: Seven
30 o’clock.). It seems, therefore, that the topic of time and the associated
31 vocabulary (numbers) is well mastered by the 3rd graders. The study
32 aim ‘‘can answer simple questions dealing with familiar topics’’, too,
33 seems to be attained by the end of 3rd grade (Bildungsplanung Zen-
34 tralschweiz 2004: 12).
35 These aims are part of Level A1.1 in the curriculum, based on the
36 competence levels which are described in the CEFR, (Council of Europe
37 2001). The curriculum specifies that in the 3rd and 4th grade the chil-
38 dren should attain the level A1.1 as far as their oral interaction skills
39 are concerned. In this study a learning aim of the curriculum is inter-
40 preted as having been attained when the assigned tasks in the interview
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 125)
126 Andrea Haenni Hoti, Sybille Heinzmann, and Marianne Müller
1 have been fulfilled by 65% of the children; this benchmark indicates that
2 the majority of the children are able to complete the task. In order to
3 make more reliable assertions regarding the attainment of study aims,
4 however, a larger sample and a greater number of tasks would be re-
5 quired. Furthermore, no statements can be made as to the number of
6 children who have attained a specific level in accordance with the
7 CEFR because the exact level of the task used for testing cannot be
8 examined.
9
10
3.1.3. Study aim: ‘‘can describe familiar things, animals and people’’
11
(A1.1 Level)
12
13 In the second part of the test the children were asked to describe a pic-
14 ture and subsequently identify four di¤erences between two pictures.
15 The identification of a di¤erence required the correct naming of things
16 or states in both pictures. If a child was able to name a thing or state in
17 one picture but not in the other, he or she was considered to have iden-
18 tified 0.5 di¤erences. The task was fulfilled if the children were able to
19 describe at least three di¤erences, partially fulfilled if they were able to
20 describe at least 1.5 di¤erences and not fulfilled if they could describe
21 less than 1.5 di¤erences. There were two test versions (A and B) that
22 turned out to be unequal in terms of task di‰culty. In the first version
23 the presented pictures featured a grocery. Seventy-two percent of the
24 children fulfilled the task and were able to describe 3–4 di¤erences
25 between the two pictures (S: And here has rain and here not.). The sec-
26 ond version featured two pictures of a beach scene. In this setting only
27 42% of the children fulfilled the task (S: Here look the dog on the left side
28 und here look the dog on the right side.).
29 As this is a longitudinal study, two test versions (A and B) were
30 drawn up and presented to each half of the children. The two versions
31 will be exchanged in conjunction with the second interview at the end
32 of 4th grade. Using the Rasch analysis as an evaluation method, a scale
33 will be computed, enabling us to make statements about the di‰culty of
34 the tasks and the children’s skills (Rasch 1980).
35 While we assume that the above-mentioned task is qualified to mea-
36 sure the study aim ‘‘can describe familiar things, animals and people’’,
37 we also need to point out that the results seem to be heavily dependent
38 on the picture presented and the associated vocabulary. Given that all
39 respondents were able to describe things, animals, persons and to some
40 extent even activities presented in the pictures, the above study aim can
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 126)
Assessing speaking skills and interaction strategies of young learners 127
5 3.1.4. Study aims: ‘‘can name food and drinks to buy or order them’’ and
6 ‘‘can say what they like to eat and drink and order something to
7 eat or drink’’ (A1.2 Level)
8
The third part of the oral interaction test consisted of a role-play which
9
the children carried out spontaneously in pairs (no preparation time was
10
given). Again there were two versions: in Version A the children were
11
supposed to go shopping (n ¼ 53) and in Version B they were to eat in
12
a restaurant (n ¼ 57). In the ‘shopping’ version one child acted the
13
role of the shopkeeper and the other the role of the customer. The task
14
was considered fulfilled if all the key elements of the interaction were
15
present. We defined the following four elements as key elements in the
16
given situation: (1) greeting, (2) ordering/bringing all the five items listed
17
on the shopping list, (3) paying and (4) saying goodbye. The children’s
18
utterances had to be comprehensible for an English-speaking person in
19
order to contribute to the fulfillment of the task. About one third (32%)
20
of the children successfully demonstrated all four key elements and,
21
accordingly, fulfilled the task, as illustrated in the example below:
22
23 Customer: Hello.
24 Shopkeeper: Hello.
25 Customer: Er, err, errr (thinking), a red shirt, a book.
26 Shopkeeper: (brings T-shirt) Das (‘this’).
27 Customer: Thanks.
28 Shopkeeper: (brings book)
29 Customer: Shoes.
30 Shopkeeper: (brings shoes)
31 Customer: Two bars of chocolate.
32 Shopkeeper: (brings two bars of chocolate)
33 Customer: And a bot of milk.
34 Shopkeeper: (brings milk)
35 Customer: Thanks.
36 Shopkeeper: Thirty, er, thirty-three money.
37 Customer: (pays)
38 Shopkeeper: Thank you.
39 Customer: (starts packing)
40 Shopkeeper: I can you help?
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 127)
128 Andrea Haenni Hoti, Sybille Heinzmann, and Marianne Müller
1
Customer: No, thanks.
2
Shopkeeper: Goodbye.
3
Customer: Goodbye, thanks.
4
5
Another 49% of the children partially fulfilled the task of going shop-
6
ping. This means that they successfully accomplished the core of the
7
interaction, namely the exchange of the goods and payment (elements
8
two and three), but did not say hello or goodbye. About a fifth of the
9
children (19%) were unable to accomplish the core of the interaction:
10
they did not order or bring all the items on the shopping list or other
11
items instead or they did not pay.
12
The role-play ‘in the restaurant’ turned out to be more challenging
13
than the ‘shopping’ version which might be due to the fact that this
14
situation is less familiar for children at this age. One child acted the
15
role of the waiter/waitress and the other the role of the customer. Paral-
16
lel to the other version four key elements were necessary for the interac-
17
tion to be considered entirely successful and the task fulfilled: (1) greet-
18
ing, (2) ordering/bringing all the five items on the menu, (3) paying and
19
(4) saying goodbye. Four percent of the children fulfilled the task, incor-
20
porating all four key elements in their interaction. The example below is
21
an illustration of a role-play.
22
23 Customer: Hello.
24 Waiter: Hello.
25 Customer: I will a salad with bread, a cuk, and spaghetti and ice-cream.
26 Waiter: Here the salad (brings salad) and the bread (brings bread),
27 cola (brings coke), ice-cream (brings ice-cream) and
28 spaghetti?
29 Customer: Yes.
30 Waiter: (brings spaghetti)
31 Customer: (eats)
32 Waiter: (thinking) Twenty-eight, please. (The children were not
33 expected to calculate correctly.)
34 Customer: (hands the waiter 18 francs)
35 Waiter: Twenty-eight.
36 Customer: Yes. (stands up and leaves) Bye.
37 Waiter: Bye.
38
39 More than a third (39%) partially fulfilled the task. They ordered/
40 brought all the items on the menu and paid, but did not greet or say
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 128)
Assessing speaking skills and interaction strategies of young learners 129
1 goodbye. The other children did not fulfill the task because they did not
2 successfully accomplish key elements two and three.
3 The results suggest that the task di‰culty of the role-plays depends
4 on the contrived situation and that it clearly exceeds level A1.1, which
5 is the level targeted in 3rd and 4th grade. The results also suggest that
6 the majority of the children have already partially attained the study
7 aims: ‘‘can name food and drinks to buy or order them’’ and ‘‘can say
8 what they like to eat and drink and order something to eat or drink’’.
9
10
3.1.5. Study aim: ‘‘can use everyday words like thank you or sorry’’
11
(A1.1 Level)
12
19
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 129)
130 Andrea Haenni Hoti, Sybille Heinzmann, and Marianne Müller
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 130)
Assessing speaking skills and interaction strategies of young learners 131
10 Picture description:
11 S: Er, here is a boy who, er, trommels (‘is playing the drums’).
12 I: Mhm. With the drums. And here?
13 S: Is mit the guitar.
14
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 131)
132 Andrea Haenni Hoti, Sybille Heinzmann, and Marianne Müller
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
21
After one year of English instruction all children mostly produced
22
1-word utterances and in many instances these were perfectly adequate.
23
The number of 1-word utterances produced by a single child ranges
24
from three to thirty-one (I: And where are you from? S: Portugal.)
25
(Figure 2). Twelve percent of the pupils produced 16 and 18 1-word
26
utterances, respectively.
27
As might be expected, the number of utterances produced by the chil-
28
dren decreases as complexity increases (see Figures 2 to 5). Across the
29
entire sample the children produced between 0 and 12 3-word utter-
30
ances. Seven percent of the children did not use any 3-word utterances,
31
while one child used 12 such utterances (I: What is the boy doing? S: He
32
playing guitar.) (see Figure 3).
33
Five-word utterances were produced by the children between never
34
and eight times (child describes a picture: I can see a lake.) (see Figure
35
4). More than 50% of the pupils produced one or more 5-word utter-
36
ances in their test. One child used as many as eight 5-word utterances,
37
which can be considered quite complex.
38
Nine-word or longer utterances constitute quite an achievement for
39
3rd graders after just one year of English instruction, considering the
40
limited amount of exposure to the language, as they have had 2–3
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 132)
Assessing speaking skills and interaction strategies of young learners 133
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 133)
134 Andrea Haenni Hoti, Sybille Heinzmann, and Marianne Müller
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
lessons a week. It is not surprising then that such utterances were
21
accordingly rare (child describes di¤erences between two pictures: Here
22
look the dog on the left side und 4 here look the dog on the right side) (see
23
Figure 5). Slightly more than three quarters (77%) of the children pro-
24
duced no utterance of this length, while around every fifth child (21%)
25
was able to produce a 9-word or longer utterance. One child used three
26
and another four utterances of such complexity.
27
28
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 134)
Assessing speaking skills and interaction strategies of young learners 135
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
The highest ratio of children exhibited a vocabulary range of 19 or
25
23 words (8% of the children, respectively). The following examples
26
serve to illustrate the repertoire of target language words participants
27
exhibited:
28
29
Example 1: a, baby, clock, pear, orange, banana, and, mom, boy, dog, the, it,
30 is, black, red, this, girl, here, apple ¼ 19 words
31
Example 2: I, can, see, a, dog, he, is, out, the, water, and, kite, here, are, two,
32
girls, man, yellow, orange, hat, boat, trees, no, yes, playing, with, his, guitar,
33 rainbow, not, butterfly, have, this, fish ¼ 34 words
34
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 135)
136 Andrea Haenni Hoti, Sybille Heinzmann, and Marianne Müller
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 136)
Assessing speaking skills and interaction strategies of young learners 137
4
(Intercept) 1.61 0.79
5
Reading skills in German (L1) 2.41 0.74 **
6 Feelings of being overburdened and 0.26 0.17
7
fear of making mistakes
8
Use of (meta-)cognitive and 0.62 0.24 *
social learning strategies
9
Attitudes towards English-speaking 0.26 0.17
10
countries/people
11
Age: b 10 years old 0.40 0.22
12
13 ‘‘**’’ 0.001 < p < 0.01, ‘‘*’’ 0.01 < p < 0.05, ‘‘ ’’ 0.05 < p < .01 (n ¼ 110; R2 ¼ 24%;
14 p < .0001)
15
16
17
younger classmates. It might be that these children were later enrolled
18
into the school system or had to repeat a school year (see Table 1).
19
The following variables were eliminated during the variable selection
20
process because they did not significantly improve the model fit: gender,
21
number of books at home, citizenship (Swiss/binational/other national-
22
ity), number of spoken languages in the family, parental support while
23
learning English, motivation to learn English, achievement-related self-
24
concept. Consequently, they can be regarded as unimportant factors
25
with respect to the explanation of the English-speaking skills of the 3rd
26
graders in our sample.
27
Finally, the school class factor was tested again, together with the
28
individual variables in a multilevel model. The class e¤ect remained
29
insignificant.
30
31
32 4. Conclusion
33
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 137)
138 Andrea Haenni Hoti, Sybille Heinzmann, and Marianne Müller
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 138)
Assessing speaking skills and interaction strategies of young learners 139
1 present, they can negatively a¤ect the children’s speaking skills. To pre-
2 vent such fears, teachers should keep encouraging their students to
3 speak in the target language and point out that mistakes are part of the
4 learning process. After all, it is one of the main objectives of early for-
5 eign language learning to ensure that the children’s contact with the first
6 foreign language at school is positive and enjoyable.
7
9
References
10
11
Bildungsplanung Zentralschweiz
12
2004 Lehrplan Englisch für das 3.-9. Schuljahr. Luzern: Bildungsplanung
13 Zentralschweiz.
14 Büeler, Xaver, Stöckli Georg, Stebler Rita, and Stotz Daniel
15 2001 Schulprojekt 21. Lernen für das 21. Jahrhundert? Externe wissen-
16
schaftliche Evaluation. Schlussbericht zuhanden der Bildungsdirektion
des Kantons Zürich. [Electronic Version] Retrieved on 19.01.07 from
17
http://www.paed.unizh.ch/pp1/stoeckli/tsprimgraphs/SP21Teil1.pdf;
18
https://www.unizh.ch/paed/pp1/stoeckli/tsprimgraphs/SP21Teil2.pdf
19 Council of Europe
20 2001 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learn-
21 ing, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22 EDK (Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren)
23
1998 Sprachenkonzept Schweiz: Welche Sprachen sollen die Schülerinnen
und Schüler der Schweiz während der obligatorischen Schulzeit ler-
24
nen? Bericht der Expertengruppe ‘‘Gesamtsprachenkonzept’’. Bern:
25
Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren.
26 2004 Sprachenunterricht in der obligatorischen Schule: Strategie der EDK
27 und Arbeitsplan für die Gesamtschweizerische Koordination. Bes-
28 chluss der Plenarversammlung der EDK vom 25. März 2004. Bern:
29
Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren.
Retrieved on 08.01.07 from http://www.edk.ch/PDF_Downloads/
30
Presse/REF_B_31-03-2004_d.pdf
31
Haenni Hoti, Andrea
32 2007 Leistungsvielfalt als Herausforderung für den Englischunterricht in
33 der Primarschule. Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung (BzL). Zeitschrift zu
34 Theorie und Praxis der Grundausbildung 25 (2): 205–213.
35
Haenni Hoti, Andrea and Erika Werlen
2007 Englischunterricht (L2) in den Zentralschweizer Primarschulen: Hat
36
er einen positiven oder negativen Einfluss auf das Leseverständnis
37
der SchülerInnen in Deutsch (L1)? In: Erika Werlen and Ralf
38 Weskamp (eds.), Kommunikative Kompetenz und Mehrsprachigkeit.
39 Diskussionsgrundlagen und unterrichtspraktische Aspekte, 139–160.
40 Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 139)
140 Andrea Haenni Hoti, Sybille Heinzmann, and Marianne Müller
1 Hasselgreen, Angela
2 2000 The assessment of the English ability of young learners in Nor-
3
wegian schools: an innovative approach. Language Testing 17 (2):
261–277.
4
2005 Assessing the language of young learners. Language Testing 22 (3):
5
337–354.
6 Johnstone, Richard
7 2000 Context-sensitive assessment of modern languages in primary (ele-
8 mentary) and early secondary education: Scotland and the Euro-
9
pean experience. Language Testing 17 (2): 123–143.
Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations (OCR)
10
2006 Asset Languages. External Assessment Sample Tasks. Cambridge:
11
OCR. Retrieved 01.01.2006 from http://www.assetlanguages.org.
12 uk/about/samples.aspx
13 Rasch, Georg W.
14 1980 Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests (ex-
15 panded edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16
Schaer, Ursula and Ursula Bader
2003 Evaluation Englisch an der Primarschule Projekt 012. Appenzell:
17
Schulamt. Retrieved 30.09.2007 from http://www.ai.ch/dl.php/de/
18 20031110083112/Evaluationsbericht+07.11.2003.pdf
19 Selinker, Larry
20 1992 Rediscovering Interlanguage. London: Longman.
21 University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations
22
2003 Cambridge Young Learners English Tests. Sample Papers. Cam-
bridge: University of Cambridge.
23
2004 Cambridge Young Learners English Tests. Sample Papers. Cam-
24
bridge: University of Cambridge.
25 Werlen, Erika
26 2006 Neuland Grundschul-Fremdsprachenunterricht. Empirische Ergeb-
27 nisse der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung, Fremdsprachen in der
28
Grundschule’ in Baden-Württemberg. Babylonia 1: 10–16.
Weskamp, Ralf
29
2003 Fremdsprachenunterricht entwickeln. Grundschule – Sekundarstufe I
30
– Gymnasiale Oberstufe. Hannover: Schroedel Verlag.
31 White, Joanna L. and Carolyn, E. Turner
32 2005 Comparing Children’s Oral Ability in Two ESL Programs. The
33 Canadian Modern Language Review 61 (4): 491–517.
34 Zangl, Renate
35
2000 Monitoring language skills in Austrian primary (elementary)
schools: A case study. Language Testing 17 (2): 250–260.
36
37
38
39
40
(V9 28/7/09 18:57) WDG (155mm230mm) TimesNRMT 1120 Jiang (SOLA) pp. 119–140 1143 Nikolov_06_Ch06 (p. 140)