Abstract

Initial Position and Objectives

In german Science teaching, "language" usually stands for inconsistencies between everyday and sci-entific language (RINCKE 2007, ANTON 1999). LEISEN asked "Shall I now also teach language?" a few years ago (LEISEN 2005). Little research takes a constructive perspective on language (Lück 2009c, SCHEUER et al. 2010), WAGENSCHEIN being an early and rare exception (WAGENSCHEIN 1923). In his and Lück's wake, this study explores the links between doing science experiments, "talking to understand science" (ROTH 2002) and the effects on the language competencies of primary care children.

In 2010, 6 % of adolescents in Germany left school without a certificate, another 20 % only reached a Hauptschulabschluss leaving them with limited options on the labour market. Since the first PISA study, it is know that especially children with a migration background struggle in the german school system, the main reason being "deficits in the acquisition and use of the german language" (KIZIAK 2011, p. 2, translation GOTTWALD). Accordingly, the first PISA report proposes the "early identifica-tion and support of weak readers" in order to "substantially reduce the potential group at risk at the end of the compulsory school time" (BAUMERT 2001, p. 401, translation GOTTWALD).

Before school entry, at least 20-25 % of children in Germany have language deficits (BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR BILDUNG UND FORSCHUNG 2008). Since a few years ago, enhancing german language skills is the single biggest effort in the field of education politics. Unlike other initiatives, it is jointly and intensely pursued pursued by all relevant stakeholders, from political parties via foundations to private, local initiatives.

However - there is little consensus about the "how to" support language development. The anglosaxon world is scientifically sophisticated in the area; the german-speaking world is lacking vastly behind. Hence, there is hardly any scientific evaluation for language tests, not to speak of development pro-grams. We propose to conduct hands-on science experiments on the primary care level as a method of choice to enhance language acquisition and map out the reasons and rationale behind this approach from various points of view (e.g. the child's interest in nature's principles).

Methods of this Empirical Research

This piece of empirical research followed the principles of Qualitative Research. Its interventional parts were conducted in two Sprachförderschulen at primary school level. The research perspective was twofold: First, we investigated the effects of conducting Science Experiments on the language competencies of the children, and secondly, we aimed to explore how science experiments can be conducted fruitfully as a mean of language development in the frame of regular Sachunterricht lessons.

1.Hypotheses on the effects of Science Experiments on language development:

When conducting science experiments, children can improve not only their science knowledge but also their language competencies.

2.Questions on Science Experiments as a means of language development:

Which topics and experiments are suited for which purpose, in the class room? Which criteria make for a "good experiment"?

Which didactical approaches are suited for conducting experiments in the classroom as a means of language development?

A pre- and post-test design was used for the first question. The second, exploratory one was analyzed using the protocols of all participating observations as well as our own classroom interventions, using Qualitative Content Analysis (MAYRING 2008).

Results

Language Development ('Vocabulary'): Conducting experiments positively affects the children's language competencies, here their ability to name objects: While the correct naming of objects used by the children while experimenting increased 30 % on average, naming of objects only seen during teacher experiments gained 17 %. Naming of things not used in class during the intervention rose by 7.5 %.

'Chemistry': The science knowledge of the participating children improved in the same magnitude as comparable studies (LÜCK 2000, RISCH 2006) in spite of the language challenges and the bifocal ap-proach of the experimental sessions.

Exploring the bifocal didactic approach during the intervention ('science' and 'language'), a variety of topics were explored and addressed: We developed criteria of purposeful experiments, formulated principal steps of conducting experiments with a bifokal approach and considerations for the use of the verbal process. The latter ones included Storytelling, the upfront preparation of vocabulary, methods to train grammatical structures along the way and the documentation in Science Diaries.

This dissertation proposes and justifies conducting science experiments by primary school children in the classroom as a fruitful and constructive way not only to improve their science skills, but also their language competencies.