Int Rev Educ (2011) 57:551–565

DOI 10.1007/s11159-011-9255-3

Bilingual teaching for multilingual students? Innovative

dual-medium models in Slovene-German schools
in Austria

Judith Purkarthofer • Jan Mossakowski

Published online: 25 December 2011

Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Traditional bilingual education programmes in regional linguistic

minority contexts face major challenges within the recent paradigm of linguistic
diversity against a background of increasing migration, mobility and trans-locality.
Based on three case studies, the authors of this paper focus on how particular dual-
medium models are applied in Slovene-German schools in Carinthia, Austria. They
examine not only how these schools provide for a balanced bilingual teaching and
learning environment, but also how they deal with their students’ multilingual
realities and support their identification with bi- and multilingualism. The authors
regard schools as institutional sites where linguistic dispositions are subject to
discursive power relations and where language policies and educational goals are
negotiated by teachers, parents and students alike. Drawing on speaker-centred and
ethnographic approaches in sociolinguistic research, the authors seek to document
experiences of all actors involved as well as spatial and discursive practices.
Through this the authors show how these dual-medium schools achieve particular
profiles in multilingual education which are potentially regarded as innovative
examples of best-practice and as being of interest for students and families with
heterogeneous linguistic backgrounds.

Keywords Dual-medium teaching models in bilingual education

Multilingual students
Slovene minority in Austria
Heteroglossic repertoires

School ethnography
Language biographical methods

J. Purkarthofer (&)
J. Mossakowski

Forschungsgruppe Spracherleben, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Wien,
Sensengasse 3a, 1090 Wien, Austria
e-mail: [Link]@[Link]
J. Mossakowski
e-mail: [Link]@[Link]

123
552 J. Purkarthofer, J. Mossakowski

Résumé Enseignement bilingue pour élèves multilingues ? Modèles innovants à

double vecteur linguistique dans les écoles germano-slovènes en Autriche – Les
programmes traditionnels d’enseignement bilingue, appliqués dans les contextes
régionaux à minorité linguistique, rencontrent des défis majeurs face au nouveau
standard de diversité linguistique apparaissant dans un contexte de migration, de
mobilité et de translocalité accrues. À partir de trois études de cas, les auteurs de cet
article se penchent sur les formes d’application de modèles spécifiques à double
vecteur linguistique dans les écoles germano-slovènes de Carinthie (Autriche). Ils
examinent les moyens employés par ces écoles, d’une part en vue de garantir un
enseignement bilingue et un environnement éducatif équilibrés, d’autre part pour
intégrer les réalités multilingues de leurs élèves et favoriser leur identification au
bilinguisme ou au multilinguisme. Les auteurs voient en ces écoles des sites
institutionnels où les prédispositions linguistiques sont sujettes à des rapports de force
de nature discursive, et où les politiques linguistiques et objectifs éducatifs sont
concertés entre enseignants, parents et élèves. En s’appuyant sur les méthodes
ethnographiques et celles centrées sur le locuteur issues de la recherche sociolinguis-
tique, les auteurs s’attachent à documenter les expériences de tous les acteurs impliqués
ainsi que les pratiques spatiales et discursives. Ils montrent par ce biais par quels
moyens ces écoles à double vecteur obtiennent des profils spécifiques d’enseignement
multilingue, susceptibles de constituer des exemples innovants de bonnes pratiques, et
d’intéresser les élèves et les familles se trouvant en situation linguistique hétérogène.

Zusammenfassung Zweisprachiger Unterricht für mehrsprachige Schülerinnen

und Schüler? Innovative Modelle mit zwei Unterrichtssprachen in slowenisch-
deutschen Schulen in Österreich – Vor dem Hintergrund zunehmender Migration,
Mobilität und Überregionalität stehen herkömmliche zweisprachige Bildungspro-
gramme in Regionen mit sprachlichen Minderheiten im Rahmen des neuen Para-
digmas der Sprachenvielfalt vor großen Herausforderungen. Auf der Grundlage
dreier Fallstudien beschäftigen sich die Autoren dieses Artikels mit der Frage, wie
bestimmte Modelle mit zwei Unterrichtssprachen in slowenisch-deutschen Schulen
im österreichischen Kärnten in die Praxis umgesetzt werden. Sie untersuchen nicht
nur, wie diese Schulen für ein ausgeglichenes zweisprachiges Unterrichts- und
Lernumfeld sorgen, sondern auch, wie sie mit den mehrsprachigen Lebenswelten
ihrer Schülerinnen und Schüler umgehen und deren Identifikation mit der Zwei- und
Mehrsprachigkeit unterstützen. Die Autoren betrachten Schulen als institutionelle
Orte, wo sprachliche Neigungen den Herrschaftsbeziehungen des gesellschaftlichen
Diskurses unterworfen sind und Sprachpolitik und Bildungsziele gleichermaßen
zwischen Lehrkräften, Eltern und Schüler(inne)n ausgehandelt werden. Die Autoren
stützen sich auf sprecherzentrierte und ethnographische Ansätze der soziolinguis-
tischen Forschung und versuchen, die Erfahrungen aller beteiligten Akteure ebenso
zu dokumentieren wie raumbezogenes und diskursives Handeln. Damit zeigen die
Autoren, wie diese Schulen mit zwei Unterrichtssprachen in der mehrsprachigen
Bildung bestimmte Profile erreichen, die potenziell als innovative Best-Practice-
Beispiele gelten und für Schüler(inne)n und Familien mit heterogenem sprachli-
chem Hintergrund von Interesse sein können.

123
Bilingual teaching for multilingual students? 553

Resumen >Enseñanza bilingüe para estudiantes multilingües? Modelos innova-

dores con medio dual en escuelas esloveno-germanas de Austria – Los programas
tradicionales de educación bilingüe en contextos regionales de minorı́as lingüı́sticas
deben encarar retos de importancia dentro del paradigma reciente de diversidad
lingüı́stica, frente a una situación de creciente migración, movilidad y translocali-
dad. Basándose sobre tres estudios de caso, los autores de este trabajo se centran en
cómo se aplican determinados modelos de medio dual en escuelas esloveno-ger-
manas en Carintia, Austria. Los autores no solo examinan cómo estas escuelas se
ocupan de ofrecer un entorno equilibrado de enseñanza y aprendizaje bilingüe, sino
también cómo manejan las realidades multilingües de sus estudiantes y soportan su
identificación con bilingüismo y multilingüismo. Los autores consideran las
escuelas como sitios institucionales donde las disposiciones lingüı́sticas están
sujetas a relaciones de poder discursivas y donde las polı́ticas de lenguas y los
objetivos educativos son negociados tanto por los docentes como por los padres y
estudiantes. Recurriendo a enfoques centrados en los hablantes y etnográficos en la
investigación sociolingüı́stica, los autores aspiran a documentar las experiencias de
todos los actores implicados, al igual que prácticas espaciales y discursivas.
Mediante este método, los autores muestran cómo estas escuelas con medios duales
logran crear perfiles particulares en la educación multilingüe, que potencialmente
pueden considerarse como ejemplos innovadores de buenas prácticas y que son de
interés para estudiantes y familias con bases lingüı́sticas heterogéneas.

123
554 J. Purkarthofer, J. Mossakowski

Introduction

Dual-medium education programmes in traditional minority contexts – primarily

designed for the promotion of a minority language – face major challenges within
the recent paradigm of linguistic diversity against the background of migration,
mobility and European policy-making. The goal of these programmes – to provide
students with equal time exposure to two languages and to use both languages as a
medium of instruction (cf. Christian 1996, Torres-Guzmán 2002) – can be achieved
via different strategies. In this paper, we will focus on dual-medium models that
have been developed in the past two decades at Slovene-German schools in
Klagenfurt/Celovec, the regional capital of Austria’s most southern federal state,
Carinthia.1 These case studies deal with the experiences of teachers, parents and
pupils in order to reflect on how dual-medium programmes can be adapted to
learners’ different and heterogeneous linguistic predispositions. Our own research
draws on language biographical methods and ethnographic approaches to multilin-
gualism (Busch 2006b) and aims at so-called ‘‘School Language Profiles’’ (Busch
2010). In this methodological framework, multilingual policies are regarded as
bottom-up processes that involve all actors within schools, emphasising negotiation
and the contexts of implementation.
Despite growing interest in language learning and the European Union’s and the
Council of Europe’s goals of fostering multilingualism,2 the necessary implemen-
tation is still far from the requirements of Austria’s multilingual realities. Language
policy discourse focuses largely on German as the language which is believed to
ensure social cohesion. Languages of migration – with Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian
and Turkish having the highest number of speakers – have been offered as
additional teaching subjects at primary and secondary schools since the 1970s,
depending on there being sufficient numbers of pupils. Lesser-used languages are
often put aside or remain even unknown (Busch 2006a, Brizić 2007) – and

1
Slovene is a legally acknowledged minority language in Austria, with the majority of speakers living in
Carinthia (a southern federal state, bordering on Italy and Slovenia), and it can be used as an official
language in several communities. Data from the 2001 census indicate approx. 14,000 speakers of Slovene
(of a population of about 560,000 in Carinthia), but the number of speakers is probably higher, because
people are forced to choose either German or Slovene (or another language). For the census data see:
[Link]
[accessed 7 December 2011].
2
European multilingualism is fostered by, for example, the Action Plan of the European Commission
2003, the Framework Strategy for Multilingualism 2005 and the Language Education Policy Profile
(Carnevale et al. 2008).

123
Bilingual teaching for multilingual students? 555

accordingly support is in general rather low.3 As for minority languages in specific

regions, only Burgenland-Croatian, Hungarian and Slovene benefit from regulations
regarding bilingual education. Other ‘‘autochthonous’’ minority languages are
supported by few or single local initiatives.
Until the second half of the 20th century, Slovene education in Carinthia was
intended eventually to strengthen the role of German: from grade to grade,
instruction increasingly shifted from Slovene to German in the sense of ‘‘transi-
tional’’ or ‘‘early-exit’’ bilingual education (cf. Lotherington 2004, p. 711).
Teaching materials also displayed a clear ideological orientation towards the
majority language. In the 1990s, a paradigm shift emerged, resulting from political
changes in South-Eastern Europe, the fall of the Iron Curtain and globalisation
processes. In Carinthia this led to Slovene being perceived as a relevant
neighbouring language (Busch 2008b, p. 10). Slovene-German education has
become of interest for residents whose background is German and who wish to have
an increased multilingual focus in their children’s schooling, for families who want
to revive their often ‘‘lost’’ mother tongue, as well as for families who have
migrated to Austria and intend to profit from curriculum languages that represent a
language similar to their mother tongue.4
Recent changes in the pupils’ background and the heterogeneity of the learner
groups attending dual-language education programmes challenge schools in their
didactic approach. Children do not only differ in their competencies in the majority
language and the minority language (Busch 2008b, p. 11), but also bring along
various other linguistic resources, which are sometimes part of the schools’
curricula (e.g. English or Italian), but in most cases remain unrecognised (e.g.
Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian). The mission statement of a dual-medium programme,
which was initially designed for the maintenance of a particular minority language,
is now being challenged in that more and more ‘‘clients’’ of bilingual schools seek
multilingual enhancement in general.
In 2008/09, dual-medium teaching was in use in 68 primary schools in Carinthia
and about 1,850 children (41.55 per cent) were enrolled in Slovene language
instruction (LSRK 2009, p. 10). In the majority of these cases, the languages of
instruction are not distributed systematically and actually differ greatly in quantity
as well as quality, depending on teachers’ competencies and resources. As for
schools in Klagenfurt/Celovec, particular dual-medium models were developed in
close cooperation with the University of Klagenfurt/Celovec and could guarantee a
systematic distribution of the languages of instruction. Basically, there are three
main methodologies to distribute languages of instruction systematically (cf.
Christian 1996, among others). In time-based models, the distribution of the
language of instruction relies on fixed timetables, changing the language on an
hourly, daily or weekly basis or using the second language one day of the week, for
3
The right to participate in education in one’s mother tongue is now very much pushed forward by civil
society organisations, especially the ‘‘Netzwerk Sprachenrechte’’ (‘‘Network for Language Rights’’), a
group of experts and practitioners in language and migration. For ongoing debates see Plutzar and
Kerschhofer-Puhalo (2009).
4
For more detailed insights into the history of bilingual education in the region see Busch 2008b or
Wakounig 2008.

123
556 J. Purkarthofer, J. Mossakowski

example. Person-based models indicate change of instruction language by change of

teacher. Finally, in subject-based models, different subjects are assigned to different
languages of instruction. This model is mostly used in secondary education, whereas
time- and person-based models are often found in primary and pre-school contexts.
Outside Klagenfurt/Celovec, dual-medium instruction is mostly pursued within a
team-teaching system, where languages of instruction are not distributed system-
atically. Two teachers work in one class in order to instruct only parts of the class,
since some (German-speaking) parents do not register their children for Slovene
schooling.
In the following, we will examine how the theoretical models of dual-language
instruction are applied (and partly combined) in three schools in Klagenfurt/
Celovec: the private primary school ‘‘VS Hermagoras/Mohorjeva ljudska šola’’,5 the
public primary school ‘‘Öffentliche Zweisprachige Volksschule 24/Javna dvo-
jezična ljudska šola 24’’ (‘‘VS 24’’)6 and the public secondary school ‘‘Bundes-
gymnasium und Bundesrealgymnasium für Slowenen/Zvezna Gimnazija in Zvezna
Realna Gimnazija za Slovence’’.7 We will compare this work with research on other
current dual-medium instruction systems. Finally, we will conclude in which way
these programmes are able to reflect particular conditions and requirements of the
school, and see how they potentially live up to pupils’ and parents’ backgrounds and
perspectives. Before that, we will briefly elaborate on our methodological
framework.

School language profiles

Questioning how education is able to reflect pupils’ multilingual reality presupposes

that their heteroglossic repertoire must not be reduced to a dichotomy such as ‘‘the
language of origin’’ vs. ‘‘the target language’’. Our speaker-centred approach draws
on biographical, ethnographic and participatory methods. ‘‘School language
profiles’’ are interested in the situated practices of a school in its particular
environment, taking into account the perspectives of students, parents and teachers
alike.8 Teachers’ pedagogical motivations and didactical experiences are highly
relevant for children’s perceptions of language issues, such as power relations
(Cummins 2009) or the distribution of language use according to space and persons
involved (Lee et al. 2008). Speakers interact in a complex set of expectations as well
as competencies, and their heteroglossic repertoire is in an ongoing transformation
according to their needs, to the requirements of the (imagined) environment and to
attitudes towards languages or variations. Such bundles of metalinguistic disposition

5
Based on the research project ‘‘Jeder Tag Sprache’’, carried out in 2010 by the authors at the University
of Vienna in cooperation with the University of Klagenfurt.
6
Based on reports from the research project ‘‘Zweisprachiger Unterricht – Neues sprachpädagogisches
Konzept’’ (2003–2011) carried out at the University of Klagenfurt by Vladimir Wakounig.
7
Based on a research project in the ‘‘Bundesgymnasium und Bundesrealgymnasium für Slowenen/
Zvezna Gimnazija in Zvezna Realna Gimnazija za Slovence’’ in 2007, carried out by Brigitta Busch.
8
Kim Potowski (2007) uses a similar approach in her case study of a dual immersion school in Chicago.

123
Bilingual teaching for multilingual students? 557

are not static, but modified over time. Similar to Bourdieu’s notion of habitus,9 the
notion of ‘‘dispositions’’ refers to knowledge of linguistic variation, (meta)prag-
matics and language ideologies (cf. Pavlenko and Blackledge 2004) as well as to the
emotions and desires linked to linguistic practices (cf. Kramsch 2006). In this view,
communicative practices across language boundaries are regarded rather as a
productive resource than as a deficiency.
In the case of Slovene-German schools, school language profiles were applied in
two schools, where we focused on two age-groups (26 students aged 9 to 10 and 20
students aged 17 to 18) and their teachers and parents. Interviews with 15 teachers
and eight parents were conducted. Whereas we were able to reach teachers and
parents through interviews and group discussions, we developed creative workshops
for pupils, applying several tasks in order to elicit language biographical narratives
and meta-linguistic discourse.10 One impulse task aims to associate colours and
body parts with languages in order to portray one’s linguistic repertoire within a pre-
printed blank human silhouette (Krumm 2001, Busch 2010). The intention is to
change the mode of representation from the written or spoken word to the visual and
thus display processes of language choice which tend to operate unconsciously and
cannot easily be verbalised. In this manner, notions and feelings about one’s
‘‘linguistic self’’ in the elicited narratives are less bound to genre expectations and
categories, such as ‘‘mother tongue’’. Together with the data from audio-recordings
and further creative tasks, we documented individual language profiles for each
participant, consisting of the transcribed oral descriptions and discussions of the
drawings, scans of the body-parts portrait, and drawings and research notes taken by
the researchers during and after the workshops. Usually such a profile shows at least
four languages or varieties and gives us an idea of the speaker’s imaginations of the
(multilingual) self (Kramsch 2006). Analysis of the data was done for individuals
and subsequently for the group (and school). In both steps, the repertoire of the self
(and school) was made explicit and students’, teachers’ and parents’ strategies and
approaches to appropriate languages were analysed.
Through this approach, we were not dealing with questions of language
competence and linguistic performance, but focused on how speakers think about
their talking, about languages and about their language biography. Still, we were not
primarily interested in the uniqueness of a particular life story but in the social
dimensions of the language practices and ideologies that a speaker is exposed to and
hence exposes as well throughout his/her life. The value ascribed to particular
language practices can be understood in isolation neither from the people who
employ them nor from the larger networks and social relationships which these
individuals are engaged in. Understanding school as a nexus of practice (Scollon
and Scollon 2003), we further examined how linguistic dispositions are enacted in
an institutional setting, drawing on a topological approach based on multimodal data
(Busch 2008a). Describing school as a spatial entity reveals linguistic hierarchies

9
Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of habitus refers to shared knowledge and values of particular social groups of
society, and is linked to preferences and actions that are regarded as valuable within a specific group. For
details linked to metalinguistic dispositions see Busch 2010.
10
For more detailed insight into methods and data see e.g. Busch 2010 or Mossakowski et al. 2010.

123
558 J. Purkarthofer, J. Mossakowski

and power relations, as well as competing and subversive practices. Involving

students in taking photographs of the linguistic landscape (Shohamy and Gorter
2009) is a participatory way of gaining relevant data, e.g. official notices and posters
or graffiti and writing on walls or desks. Through our combined approaches and the
triangulation of data, we sought to take the manifold perspectives of learners,
teachers and parents into account.

Cases of dual-medium schools in Klagenfurt/Celovec, Carinthia

Since its foundation in 1989, the Hermagoras/Mohorjeva primary school in

Klagenfurt/Celovec has applied a time-based model that changes the language of
teaching in all classes on a daily basis: if German is the language of instruction on
one day, then Slovene will be used on the following day. A further specificity is the
broad language curriculum, integrating Italian from the first grade onwards as well
as English from the third grade onwards. Slovene immersion weeks at the beginning
of a school year, regular student exchanges with a school in Slovenia, a well-
equipped library and further language-related projects complete the school’s
multilingual standing, which is also represented by bilingual labels or posters in
classrooms and hallways. The school’s teachers underline some of their system’s
advantages, like the clear distribution of languages and the chance to repeat teaching
content in the other language on the following day and hence to support parallel and
balanced language acquisition.
Taking four basic fields of communicative competencies into consideration – namely
grammatical, sociolinguistic, discursive and strategic competencies (cf. Potowski 2007,
p. 208) – we view teachers as role models who not only have to make rules and norms
explicit to ensure their transmission but who are also competent speakers of two (and
more) languages. Whereas traditional dual-language immersion focused very much on
the teachers’ linguistic input, the necessity of active language stimulation has been
increasingly pointed out. Strategies which allow students to make less use of the
majority language in group activities, to fulfil tasks in the minority language without the
teacher’s assistance and allow them to be the main participants in the learning
environment have been suggested (cf. Potowski 2007, p. 209f.). In the case of
Hermagoras/Mohorjeva, teachers try to balance respect for the students’ language
choice and proactive support for Slovene language use. Strategies to strengthen the use
of Slovene include its use as a meta-language as well as in informal settings (i.e. breaks)
and during the exchange programme, which is an occasion for students to overcome
shyness and to start experimenting with the language.
During the last 20 years the proportion of children with little or no previous
knowledge of Slovene has increased, either because their family background is
(becoming) predominantly German or because they speak other languages at home,
e.g. Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, English, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Tagalog or
Thai.11 In order to work with these individual predispositions and to support the
11
Other bilingual schools in the region have undergone this notable change as well. In 2008/09, 14 per
cent of pupils enrolling in Slovene education programmes in Carinthia had good skills, 20 per cent had
average skills in Slovene, and the rest virtually none (LSRK 2009).

123
Bilingual teaching for multilingual students? 559

learners’ bilingualism adequately, Hermagoras/Mohorjeva splits grades into two

classes according to the level of proficiency in Slovene, if possible. Drawing on
findings in various multilingual education contexts, Ofelia Garcı́a et al. view such
strategies as a common and sufficient way to deal with linguistic heterogeneity
(2006, p. 21). In both classes the time-based teaching model is pursued right from
the beginning. According to the teachers, children with no prior knowledge are able
to adapt quickly to Slovene as one of the two school languages.
However, two of the school’s nine teachers highlight the beneficial effect of
using the children’s different levels of knowledge. Through translation and
explanation by other students, teachers can be supported in their work and children
achieve an ‘‘expert position’’. But whether the role of language brokers12 can be
experienced in a positive way is very much dependent on the general bias in a
school’s multilingual representation, organisation and practices. Audrey Amrein and
Robert A. Peña (2000) have shown that bilingual students fulfilling a language
broker role in an English–Spanish school in the USA seemed to strengthen their
orientation to English-speaking peers rather than to Spanish-speaking ones. In an
environment where parents’ unfavourable language ideologies and asymmetries in
the teachers’ bilingualism or in the spatial representation of languages interfere, the
success of a balanced bilingual education is limited. Although working with
bilingual teachers, Jin Sook Lee et al. (2008, p. 90) have shown similar outcomes for
another Spanish–English dual-medium school and concluded that ‘‘a thickening of
identities of the teachers and students as speakers of either Spanish or English,
rather than bilingual speakers of two languages’’ takes place.
Another dual-medium model applied in most of Carinthian schools, a so-called
teacher tandem, seems to be similar (cf. ‘‘team-teaching system’’ above). Bilingual
instruction is rather translation-oriented there and the role of Slovene becomes even
more limited. In the case of Hermagoras/Mohorjeva, all teachers share the fact that
they are highly bilingual and can thus be responsible for both languages in class.
This fact enables a strict time-based system, and allows teachers to be perceived as
bilingual speakers and hence as role models for the children. Also, the school as a
linguistic landscape is equally marked as Slovene and German, both in represen-
tation as well as resources, and the teachers make huge efforts to reduce the overall
dominance of German, which is common in Austria’s educational institutions.
Nonetheless, these facts do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that this
school’s case is an example for a purely non-submersive approach to bilingual
education – an approach which does not focus on the majority language over time –,
due to the heterogeneity of its students’ linguistic backgrounds. Whereas Slovene-
and Slovene-German-speaking pupils benefit to a great extent from the dual
language immersion, German-speaking pupils achieve a basis for Slovene as a
future second language, and pupils with a first language such as Bosnian/Croatian/
Serbian gain from Slovene as a helpful pathway to German. Notably, our language
biographical work with the pupils has shown that languages from South-Eastern

12
The term language brokers refers to children of immigrant families who translate and interpret for their
parents and other individuals.

123
560 J. Purkarthofer, J. Mossakowski

Europe are increasingly perceived as emotionally close, since they are already
related to a variety of contexts and persons (e.g. classmates, friends, family
members and transnational mobility) and co-productive for the use of Slovene.13 As
for Slovene itself, such contextualisations were also common in pupils’ comments
in the workshops, regardless of which linguistic family background they came from.
Therefore, from the perspective of the children, the ‘‘minority language’’ does not
only play a role at school.
Another primary school in Klagenfurt/Celovec, the public VS 24, also provides a
balanced Slovene-German education, but through a combined time- and person-based
model. It switches between German and Slovene instruction on a weekly basis and gains
additionally from the fact that two teachers share two classes and are hence able to
prepare the content together. The teachers themselves change the language of teaching
as well. One of them teaches in German in class A the first week, then uses Slovene for
instruction in class B the following week. The second teacher uses German in class B the
first week and Slovene in class A the following week. This system was established in
2003/04 and accompanied by evaluations in cooperation with the University of
Klagenfurt/Celovec (cf. Introduction). When the VS 24 model was put into place,
parents feared the children would be overstrained by the long periods of Slovene
teaching – but according to Vladimir Wakounig’s documentation (2008), attitudes
towards the model have changed for the better. The clear distribution of languages has
become an advantage for children and teachers alike, in comparison to the former team-
based (and thus rather translation-oriented) bilingual teaching. Children with weaker
language competencies (mostly in Slovene) benefit especially from longer periods of
uninterrupted language immersion.
A similar model is applied in Northern Italy: Rico Cathomas and Werner Carigiet
(2006) describe the case of a trilingual education system in schools in both the
Ladin and German minority contexts, where the weekly language change is
favoured as well, while the ‘‘one person – one language’’ approach is rejected in
order to avoid the false construction of teachers as monolingual speakers (cf.
Balboni 1997, pp. 146f.). It incorporates subject-based approaches as well as
metalinguistic-oriented didactics in primary school, where Ladin-speaking pupils
achieve a balanced bilingualism for German and Italian as well as a functional
trilingualism for Ladin. At secondary level, German and Italian are languages of
instruction, distributed by subjects.
While in many regions dual immersion programmes are applied only in primary
schools (cf. Paciotto 2009, p. 452), Slovene-German education in Carinthia can be
pursued in some secondary schools, e.g. the 1957-founded ‘‘Bundesgymnasium und
Bundesrealgymnasium für Slowenen/Zvezna Gimnazija in Zvezna Realna Gim-
nazija za Slovence’’ in Klagenfurt/Celovec. The possibility of achieving a high
proficiency in two or more languages makes the school an attractive choice for
students from dual-medium primary schools – from both predominantly Slovene- as
well as predominantly German-speaking backgrounds. Making Slovene education

13
Though not applying dual-medium education, some teachers at secondary schools in the Burgenland-
Croatian minority context include comparative teaching of Burgenland-Croatian and Bosnian/Croatian/
Serbian and in this way meet the heterogeneous backgrounds of their pupils (Mossakowski 2009).

123
Bilingual teaching for multilingual students? 561

available up to the age of 18, the standing of bilingual primary schools is also
strengthened. Students and parents already anticipate the option of dual-medium
secondary education when the children start primary school and are hence less likely
to opt for a German-only primary school than in areas where it is difficult to pursue
bilingual education throughout an entire schooling career.
In addition to Slovene and German, the school offers further languages,
especially in the so-called ‘‘Kugy-class’’14 since 1999, which is attended by pupils
from Carinthia, Slovenia and Italy. Four languages are used for instruction in this
class: Slovene, German, Italian and English.
The languages are distributed through a subject-based system. However, subjects are
not assigned to one single language throughout all eight grades: Biology may be taught
in Slovene in the first grade and in English in a higher grade. In general, didactics are
oriented towards project-based learning. Longer language immersion periods as well as
regular trips and school exchange foster the children’s multilingual competencies. The
fact that children start with different levels of competencies in first grade is being made a
virtue in the way that they are encouraged to benefit from each other’s knowledge, to
engage in translation and comprehension activities and hence develop mutual
understanding. Language acquisition is seen as a non-linear process and differences
in the individual development are taken into account. It is because of the informal use of
language as well as contact with regional varieties that the four languages are perceived
as close to one’s individual repertoire. Dialects, youth jargon and other non-standard
forms allow individualised expression and strengthen the relations between personal and
group identity.
The school’s teaching material also provides students with resources in languages
other than the language of teaching (e.g. German books in a Slovene biology class).
In this regard, parents have also experienced advantages when they want to support
their children: German books for subjects taught in Slovene are regarded as a
possibility for non-Slovene-speaking parents to give additional explanations. As
Carla Paciotto (2009, pp. 468f.) notes in the Italian-Slovene context, the distribution
of languages might lead to a lack of specific resources (e.g. specialised terminology)
in one or the other subject and the students or teachers have to come up with ways to
balance these inequalities, especially when competence in a subject is a requirement
for further or higher education.
The official internal communication at school (class-register, notices, and so on)
takes place mainly in Slovene. However, to adapt to the increasing number of non-
Slovene-speaking parents, invitations for parent-teacher conferences are now
distributed in German as well. This helps to diminish the fears of parents whose
choice of school for their children is based not primarily on the specific promotion
of Slovene, but on the general valuing of the learning of, and in, several languages.
The inclusion of parents in the schools’ and societies’ fostering of multilingualism is
of great importance in all of the schools, as their impact on language attitudes
among their children is highly visible.

14
Julius Kugy (1858–1944) was an alpinist and multilingual citizen of (then Austrian) parts of Italy, born
to Slovene parents. He strongly opposed nationalist ideas and is symbolic for peaceful regional
cooperation.

123
562 J. Purkarthofer, J. Mossakowski

Conclusion

Having implemented different dual-medium approaches that diminish transitional

processes in bilingual schooling, the schools we have dealt with nonetheless
represent rather exceptional cases within Austria’s bilingual educational landscape.
Their experiences could surely influence language educational policies in Austria in
a fruitful way, but until now they have had rather little impact. Still, their being
potentially regarded as examples of best practice might primarily rest upon the fact
that they apply strategies in the systematic and equal distribution of languages of
instruction. It does involve some other reasons as well, as our ethnographic
fieldwork shows.
First of all, the schools gain mainly from the commitment of their surroundings –
be it partly from political authorities, to a significant extent from minority
organisations and mostly from teachers, parents as well as pupils – and from the
active need for collaborative negotiation of educational goals with all actors
involved. These preconditions manifest widely in representational terms (e.g. a
linguistic landscape that allows for a bi- and multilingual definition of a shared
social space), in the availability of adequate teaching and learning resources or in
context-sensitive teaching principles. What is more, social practices which promote
languages outside the educational domain stimulate further possibilities for the
pupils’ use of the different languages. By consequence, they consider linguistic
resources to be less at the periphery of their lives. The teachers’ commitment also
includes a pronounced interest in being bi- and multilingual role models and to
support the students’ self-construction as multilingual speakers. Time-based
elements in a dual-medium model may seem appropriate in this regard, since they
do not assign one single language to a teacher: the pupils are perfectly aware that
their teachers are speakers (equally) competent in both languages. This allows for
identification and for heteroglossic resources to be perceived as functionally
balanced and as productive in a broader spectrum of purposes.
Another potential advantage of time-based instruction approaches is that through
the absence of the other language, pupils and teachers make efforts to use the given
language for all purposes – without switching to the sometimes ‘‘stronger’’ one. In
this regard, teachers from the documented secondary school have reported that
pupils from primary schools with time-based models show more routine in learning
through different instruction languages. Still, the implementation of purely time-
based models demands teachers with high levels of bilingualism (and thus adequate
conditions of teacher training). A person-centred model may be easier to implement,
since it does not necessarily require bilingual teachers. On the other hand, this
model might be financially unfavourable as it requires two teachers for one class at
the same time. As in every team setting, the quality of this model will also depend
on the cooperation of the two teachers and their effort to avoid the reproduction of
language hierarchies in the class setting: partial bilingualism, i.e. the teacher of the
minority language being bilingual while the majority language teacher is not, can
easily reinforce societal evaluations (cf. Amrein and Peña 2000). A way to
circumnavigate both problems has been described above in the case of the primary
school VS 24. This school combines the time- and person-based model in such a

123
Bilingual teaching for multilingual students? 563

way that two teachers share two classes, and thus keep personnel requirements at a
comparable level. After all, each application of a model requires an individual
adaptation regarding specific local contexts. In order to apply models of bilingual
education adequately, the availability of economic, human and spatial resources has
to be taken into account and may lead to an individual combination of particular
elements of different models suiting the specific needs of a given school
community. Brigitta Busch (2010) argues that the school language policy should
be negotiated between teachers, learners and parents on the basis of school language
profiles established for the specific school/class, as this would make it possible to
adapt an appropriate model of dual-medium teaching and learning which takes into
consideration all linguistic resources of the speaker and their needs and desires.
Although they were part of a minority programme in the first place, the schools
we researched in have achieved particular profiles in innovative multilingual
education that have become of interest for non-Slovene-speaking families as well,
especially for students with linguistically-heterogeneous backgrounds. Overcoming
boundaries of ethnic minority schooling and essentialist understandings of language
use seems to be necessary when meeting the needs of different communities. New
target groups for bi-/multilingual education are less traditional in their choice of
language education and recognise the languages offered as an asset in the
transmission of their family languages. This means that schools have to deal with a
plurality of contexts in which children experience linguistic resources as socially
relevant, since minority language use is no longer limited to the family domain, but
is increasingly ascribed with economic value and associated with trans-local social
networks. Multilingual education that takes pupils’ individual perspectives on
language learning into account integrates metalinguistic knowledge and allows for
language learning across language boundaries (cf. Garcı́a et al. 2006) and therefore
furthers language comparison as well as inter-comprehension (i.e. communication
in similar languages, with each speaker speaking in a language that he or she is most
proficient in). Such a focus on the learners’ diverse resources reflects their
multilingual realities and different settings of language use, making a dual-medium
approach available for several purposes.

References

Amrein, A., & Peña, R. A. (2000). Asymmetry in dual language practice: Assessing imbalance in a
program promoting equality. Education policy analysis archives, 8(1). Accessed 5 August 2010,
from [Link]
Balboni, P. E. (1997). Ladino-Italian Bilingual Programs in Italy. In J. Cummins, & D. Corson (Eds.),
Bilingual education (pp. 143–150). Encyclopaedia of language and education 5. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Brizić, K. (2007). Das geheime Leben der Sprachen. Gesprochene und verschwiegene Sprachen und ihr
Einfluss auf den Spracherwerb in der Migration. Münster: Waxmann.
Busch, B. (2006a). Bosnisch, Kroatisch, Serbokroatisch, Jugoslawisch, Romani oder Vlachisch?
Heteroglossie und ‘muttersprachlicher’ Unterricht in Österreich. In P. Cichon (Ed.), Gelebte
Mehrsprachigkeit (pp. 12–28). Wien: Praesens Verlag.
Busch, B. (2006b). Language biographies – Approaches to multilingualism in education and linguistic
research. In B. Busch, A. Jardine, & A. Tjoutuku (Eds.), Language biographies for multilingual
learning (pp. 5–18). Cape Town: PRAESA.

123
564 J. Purkarthofer, J. Mossakowski

Busch, B. (2008a). Local actors in promoting linguistic diversity. Exploring heteroglossic spaces in the
city. In G. Hogan-Brun, C. Mar-Molinero, & P. Stevenson (Eds.), Discourse on language and
integration. Critical perspectives on language testing regimes in Europe (pp. 129–152). Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Busch, B. (2008b). Mehrsprachige Bildung in Österreich: Ein Fokus auf Curricula, Lehr- und
Lernmaterialien. In J. Erfurt, G. Budach, & M. Kunkel (Eds.), E´coles plurilingues – Multilingual
schools: Konzepte, Institutionen und Akteure. Internationale Perspektiven (pp. 81–99). Frankfurt am
Main: Lang.
Busch, B. (2010). School language profiles: Valorizing linguistic resources in heteroglossic situations in
South Africa. Language and Education, 24(4), 283–294.
Carnevale, C., de Cillia, R., Krumm, H. J., & Schlocker, E. (2008): Language Education Policy Profile:
Country Report Austria. Language and language education policies in Austria: Present situation &
topical issues. An Initiative of the Council of Europe. Vienna: Bundesministerium für Unterricht,
Kunst und Kultur, Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung and Österreichisches
Sprachen-Kompetenz-Zentrum.
Cathomas, R., & Carigiet, W. (2006). Auf dem Wege zu einer integralen (Mehr-) Sprachendidaktik. In W.
Wiater & G. Videsott (Eds.), Schulen in mehrsprachigen Regionen Europas [School systems in
multilingual regions of Europe] (pp. 137–152). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Christian, D. (1996). Two-way immersion education: Students learning through two languages. The
Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 66–76.
Cummins, J. (2009). Pedagogies of choice: Challenging coercive relations of power in classrooms and
communities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(3), 261–271.
Garcı́a, O., Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Torres-Guzmán, M. (Eds.). (2006). Imagining multilingual schools.
Languages in education and glocalization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kramsch, C. (2006). The multilingual subject. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1),
97–110.
Krumm, H. J. (2001). Kinder und ihre Sprachen – lebendige Mehrsprachigkeit. Sprachportraits
gesammelt und kommentiert von Hans-Jürgen Krumm. Eviva: Wien.
Lee, J. S., Hill-Bonnet, L., & Gillispie, J. (2008). Learning in two languages: Interactional spaces for
becoming bilingual speakers. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
11(1), 75–94.
Lotherington, H. (2004). Bilingual education. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied
linguistics (pp. 695–718). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
LSRK (Landessschulrat für Kärnten) (Ed.). (2009). Jahresbericht über das Schuljahr 2007/08. Abt. VII
Minderheitenschulwesen. Klagenfurt.
Mossakowski, J. (2009). ,,Aus ihnen kann man keine Burgenlandkroaten machen‘‘ – Plurivarietale
Didaktik als Antwort auf veränderte Sprachidentitäten. In P. Cichon & L. Cichon (Eds.), Didaktik
für eine gelebte Mehrsprachigkeit (pp. 43–66). Wien: Praesens.
Mossakowski, J., Purkarthofer, J., Doleschal U., & Busch, B. (2010). Jeder Tag Sprache. Erfahrungen mit
zweisprachigem Lehren und Lernen in heterogenen Klassen an der Volksschule Hermagoras/
Ljudska sˇola Mohorjeva in Klagenfurt/Celovec. Endbericht des Forschungsprojekts der Alpen-
Adria-Univ. Klagenfurt und Univ. Wien. Wien: Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kunst und
Kultur.
Paciotto, C. (2009). What do I lose if I lose my bilingual school? Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of
the value of a Slovene language maintenance program in Italy. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 12(4), 449–475.
Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.). (2004). Introduction. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.),
Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 1–33). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Plutzar, V., & Kerschhofer-Puhalo, N. (Eds.). (2009). Nachhaltige Sprachförderung. Zur veränderten
Aufgabe des Bildungswesens in einer Zuwanderergesellschaft. Innsbruck: Studienverlag.
Potowski, K. (2007). Language and identity in a dual immersion school. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place. Language in the material world. London:
Routledge.
Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (Eds.). (2009). Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. New York:
Routledge.
Torres-Guzmán, M. E. (2002). Dual language programs: Key features and results. Directions in Language
and education, 14, 1–16.

123
Bilingual teaching for multilingual students? 565

Wakounig, V. (2008). Der heimliche Lehrplan der Minderheitenbildung. Die zweisprachige Schule in
Kärnten. Klagenfurt/Celovec: Drava.

The authors

Judith Purkarthofer is a member of the ‘‘Spracherleben Research Group’’ and works as a PhD student at
the Institute of Linguistics at the University of Vienna. Her research mainly draws on speaker-oriented
approaches in the field of multilingualism in schools and education and multilingualism in alternative
media. Former projects focused on community radio as a space of multilingual expression. She is
currently researching Austrian multilingual primary schools with an approach combining biographical
and visual methodology: Speakers’ and learners’ perspectives on languages, their own language
biographies and schools as multilingual spaces are elicited via creative methods in close cooperation with
teachers, parents and pupils.

Jan Mossakowski is a member of the ‘‘Spracherleben Research Group’’ at the Institute of Linguistics at
the University of Vienna. His work within applied linguistics focuses on individual and societal
heteroglossia as well as language politics, based on language-biographic research and metalinguistic
discourse analysis. Former projects dealt with discriminatory language use in print media, multilingual
and trans-local family biographies, Balkan cultural spaces in Vienna, and the negotiation of Burgenland-
Croatian identities and policies. He has been researching in Austrian primary schools, exploring the
relevance of pupils’, teachers’ and parents’ linguistic resources for teaching and learning in multilingual
settings, and is training pedagogues who are dealing with linguistic diversity in their field of work.

123
Copyright of International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft is the
property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.