PIANO PLAYING AS CLILAT THE PRIMARY ARTS SCHOOL IN TISNOV (CZECH REPUBLIC) 2000-2007

Zdenek Vasicek(Czech Republic)

Contacts:

Institutional Affiliation:Primary Arts School, Dvorackova 316, 666 01 Tisnov I, CZE-mail: zus.tisnov@worldonline.czPhone: +420 549 410 655

Private Address:Vrchlickeho 449, 666 01 Tisnov I, CZE-mail: zdenek.vasicek@c-box.czPhone: +420 549 413 269; Mobile phone: +420 739 908 783

MgA. et MgA. Zdenek Vasicek, Ph. D. (born in Brno, Czech Republic, in 1961) has graduated from Academy of Performing Arts in Prague (Faculty of Music) in 1988 with a MgA. in organ playing and music theory and from Masaryk University in Brno (Faculty of Arts) in 2001 with a Ph. D. in musicology. He has worked as music teacher at Primary Arts Schools in Brno and Tisnov in the years 1991-2007. He investigated the CLIL-concept since 1993. He has used the concept as a regular teacher at the Primary Arts School in Tisnov (2000-2007) and as an external teacher at the Methodological Centre of the Janacek Academy of Music and Performing Arts in Brno (2004-2007). He has been member of the (Czech) Association of Germanists and Teachers of German since 2000 and member of the Czech Educational Research Association (CERA) since 2001. He has participated actively at different international conferences in Austria (1995, 2005), Czech Republic (2001-2007), Hungary (2002), and Switzerland (2001). Interests: music, CLIL, educational research.

Abstract

This contribution informs about integration of the individual subject of PIANO PLAYING with communication in a foreign language (English or German) proceeding at the Primary Arts School in Tisnov in the period 2000-2007. This teaching trial has been connected with action research of the teacher – author of this contribution. The research measured suitability of the CLIL-concept for the pupils and included 10 items (especially piano playing, foreign language communication, pupil motivation). The five-point Likert scale has been used for the evaluation universally. The final general score (mean) of 3.6 expresses the fact that the above-mentioned integration is more suitable for the pupils than not. But their relatively limited study possibilities and needs must be respected (currently approximately 500 dictionary lexical units as a motivational maximum) and their expected study persistence is uncertain (because it is voluntary still by definition!). The contribution brings several ideas for future development of CLIL.

Keywords: piano playing, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), alternative schools, Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), evaluation.

Introduction: CLIL as a Recommended Foreign-Language Approach for Schools

For many years the Council of Europe has promoted the idea of multilingualism and an approach based on communicative needs of the learners (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, 2001, pp. 1-4). It is appropriate to implement the above-mentioned idea through the concept known under the abbreviation CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): this concept is using the foreign language as the medium of instruction of content subjects (Marsh, 2001, p. 35). The ancient challenge is coming into play: all teaching should bring double or triple effect (Comenius, 1657, newly 1913, p. 288).

In spite of the fact that it is normal to be multilingual (Krumm, 2001) the concept of multilingualism is far from being a reality in Europe (Krumm, 2005, p. 35). It is recommended to implement pilot CLIL-projects (Kelly, Grenfell et al., 2002, p. ii) inclusive music (see an overview in: Content and Language Integrated Learning ..., 2006, p. 38) and namely PIANO PLAYING (Marsh, ?, p. 6). CLIL is a concept that should be part of mainstream education and not a programme for gifted language learners (Sygmund, 2005, p. 20).

In the Czech Republic the most commonly taught foreign languages are English and German (Prucha, 1999, pp. 251 and 257). Until recently the CLIL-concept has only been implemented at a couple of alternative schools (Prucha, Walterova & Mares, 1998, p. 30). The priorities of the Czech White Book (Kotasek et al., 2001, pp. 87-91) are the same as of the European White Book (Marsh, 2001, p. 24): two modern foreign languages taught at all schools. These priorities represent challenges for Czech educational research (Prucha, 2001, p. 25), or for its different types and functions (Prucha, 2002, p. 427), and must be verified with regard to their feasibility and usability (Prucha, 2001, p. 25). It is recommended to study both successes and failures of CLIL (Brohy, 2002, p. 60).

1. Teaching of CLIL at the Primary Arts School in Tisnov

1.1 Teaching Project in General

The above-mentioned words represent a real challenge for Primary Arts Schools in the Czech Republic as well. The study at these schools is voluntary (optional) and paid. I prepared my own CLIL-project as an optional alternative educational programme at the Primary Arts School in Tisnov (Czech Republic) in 2000. The individual subject of PIANO PLAYING (as it was qualified in the curriculum) has been integrated in the period 2000-2007 (together 5.5 years of CLIL) experimentally with communication in a foreign language (English or German). Not with teaching of the foreign language, but (more or less) only with communication in the foreign language. Openness of the CLIL-concept has made this approach possible (Lamsfuss-Schenk & Wolff, 1999, p. 2; Marsh, 2006, p. 4). The word “less” means the pupil has to learn some foreign language vocabulary.

CLIL as an innovative (= alternative, bilingual) subject is defined terminologically as follows:

1. PIANO PLAYING / COMMUNICATION MEANS: ENGLISH

2. PIANO PLAYING / COMMUNICATION MEANS: GERMAN.

2

The CLIL-study was not to compete with foreign language teaching at other schools or to substitute it. This study should give a new foreign language communicational opportunity to the pupil. The expected (ideal) pupils´persistence was at least 5 school years in CLIL to develop the CLIL-concept thoroughly.

The objectives of the integration were:

1. To maintain the standard level of music (piano) educational results

2. To communicate (at least) in a simple way in English or German e. g. to put the idea of multilingualism in practice

3. To enrich the existing foreign language (English or German) vocabulary with music terminology as a particular part of a multilingual competence (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, 2001, p. 135)

4. To enrich (to “europeanize”) the standard offer of school education.

Individual teaching of the standard subject of PIANO PLAYING is not easy for the teacher (Vlasakova, 2003, pp. 53-54). CLIL as an integrated subject was not easier for me, if all the parameters of the standard subject should be kept (Ucebni osnovy ... [Curriculum ...], 1985). These parameters were:

1. Standard number of lessons (e. g. one lesson a week)

2. Standard duration of the lesson 45 minutes (not an extended lesson)

3. Standard structure of the lesson (scale, chord, étude, etc.)

4. Standard recommended quantity and quality of subject matter in one school year

5. (Standard) instrumentality of the communication

6. Standard school fees.

The only difference was not Czech but a foreign language (English or German) communication.

The topic was treated as an intersection of the methodology of piano teaching with the didactics of the foreign languages with the assistance of my action research.

1.2 Teaching Method

There is no teaching method with universal applicability (Sheils, 1993, p. 5). The submersive method (Portmann-Tselikas, 1998, p. 42) could be seen as a “language bath“ (Sprachbad) for the pupil (the term compare in: De Cillia 1994, p. 15). The immersive method – in opposition to submersion – should not respect overloading of the pupil (Portmann-Tselikas, 1998, p. 43). For the pupils in individual lessons both methods were possible: of course, in an individual

3

way (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, 2001, p. 132; Kelly, Grenfell et al., 2002, p. 9).

For CLIL two (rather immersive) stages were distinguished:

1st stage, when the communication in the foreign language from the pupil´s point of view was only receptive, also using the silent period (Ytreberg, 1997, p. 26)

2nd stage, when the communication in the foreign language from the pupil´s point of view was both receptive and productive.

A medium stage of the pupil´s activation was expected and actually used. Part of the pupils (25%) began with 2nd stage right away.

The teaching method at the beginning of CLIL was easy. The infinitive “Play!” („Spiel!“) was used (as needed)

With a noun (because the pupil always plays something) with the option to use the question “What are you playing?” („Was spielst du?“)

With an adverb (because the pupil always plays in some way) with the option to use the question “How are you playing?” („Wie spielst du?“)

With both parts of speech together.

The single languages were used mutually – either Czech or English/German – subordinated to the lesson development from the pianist´s point of view (Vasicek, 2001, p. 411). The foreign language vocabulary was then gradually extended.

For the advanced pupils (with ten years of foreign language study) the methodological solution was almost needless: these pupils could communicate within the full range of lexicum (for example use of general terms) and grammar (for example use past, present and future tense and conditional mood). The pupils received different dictionaries (see “teaching materials”) from me. They only needed to remember different terms that were new for them – different “technicalities” such as “signature”, “clef” etc. I wrote these new terms in their music sheets very often.

All the pupils were lexically “pre-programmed” from the Czech language teaching of the subject of “Piano Playing”. The possible use of the present tense all the time made the communication easier.

1.3 Teaching Materials

The teaching materials should be “tailored” to the individual pupils (Kelly, Grenfell et al., 2002, p. 9). I compiled my own trilingual (Czech – English – German) thematic learning dictionaries for CLIL. Their extents ranged from 1 page to 2000 pages. It meant from 15 to 30,000 lexical units in each language, always with the partial grammar. Dictionaries with up to 500 lexical units in each language were the only vocabulary actually used. These dictionaries were consulted with native speakers from the USA and from the FRG.

4

2. Action Research in CLIL at the Primary Arts School in Tisnov

2.1 Research Samples

Altogether 25 pupils in 11 research samples have been involved in the CLIL project in the years 2000-2007: boys and girls at the age between 9 and 24 years, including one female teacher aged 29. It meant children and also adults. All the pupils studied their chosen foreign languages – English or German – at other schools.

The existing foreign language sources of the pupils were very different. They ranged from (almost) no foreign language knowledge up to very advanced foreign language knowledge, from (barely) one-year up to ten-year study of the foreign language (at primary or high schools). A relatively clear, easy and joint to teach method was necessary (see above).

2.2 Research Design and Methods

The above-mentioned teaching trial was accompanied with my own action research. This research was field tested as empirical, quantitative-qualitative, interdisciplinary, evaluation (see below) and longitudinal research. The description of my research design was based on the table in Prucha (2000, p. 181).

The main question of my action research read as follows: “Is the integration of the subject of PIANO PLAYING with communication in a foreign language (English or German) suitable for the pupils?”

The five-point Likert scale was used for evaluation universally. The “ideal” scores would represent 5.0 of Likert scale, the “catastrophic” scores 1.0 of the scale.

The applied methods included:

1. Experiment sui generis: comparison of CLIL-samples (2000-2001, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007) with one non CLIL-sample (2001-2002) consisting of pupils that originally studied under CLIL

2. Observation. I developed “tailored“ observation/evaluation sheets for needs of the standard subject PIANO PLAYING (see supplements 2 and 3 as samples)

3. Questioning. I used my own questionnaires, especially identifying the pupils´ interest in CLIL

4. Short case studies of pupils.

2.3 Theoretical Results

The research included 10 items (more precisely: altogether 41 items and sub-items) of CLIL as an alternative educational programme:

5

1. The pupil´s mastering the subject matter of piano playing: quantity and quality (score 4.8)

2. Proportional correctness of different components in CLIL, especially of teacher´s communication and pupil´s communication (score 3.6)

3. Time-limited use of the CLIL-dictionaries by the pupil (score 4.8)

4. The pupil´s mastering the quantity of the subject matter of the CLIL-dictionaries (score 3.7)

5. Quality of the pupil´s foreign language communication (score 3.5)

6. The pupil´s general need to communicate in the foreign language (English or German) (score 3.1)

7. The pupil´s consent with the way of his/her foreign language communication under CLIL (score 3.8)

8. The pupil´s motivation for piano playing under CLIL project (score 3.9)

9. Load-carying capacity of the pupil for CLIL (score 3.8)

10. The pupil´s persistence in CLIL (score 1.9).

My general interpretation of single research items is as follows:

1. The score in the subject of Piano Playing as CLIL (4.8) corresponded with the score in the standard subject of Piano Playing (4.7) quite well. It means – expressed in the negative terms – that the foreign language communication (in English or German) itself did not worsen the pupil´s results in the subject of Piano Playing as CLIL. The standard level of music (piano) educational results in CLIL was maintained. This is the most important finding for future development of CLIL at the Primary Arts School in Tisnov. The turn from strictly musical things to language things only is possible now (see chapters 4 and 5 below)

1. Score 3.6 says that the two groups of components were not well balanced. Especially foreign language communication of the teacher was (and had to be usually) at least four times longer than foreign language communication of the pupil. Maybe this is the greatest reserve waiting for a future solution: it would be good to mobilize the pupil in the foreign language more than to date

2. Score 4.8 was reached thanks to many pupils incorporated in 1st stage of CLIL (and satisfying the time limit) and not thanks to adequate progress of the pupils being in CLIL for a longer time. These last mentioned pupils stagnated with the reached vocabulary and did not feel any need to progress

3. Score 3.7 says that the pupils had problems to master the required quantity (100% = 5 = use of the whole vocabulary required). It would be good to mobilize the pupil in the foreign language more than to date

6

4. Score 3.5 declares that there were many foreign language mistakes usually made by the pupils. (In spite of the fact that in most cases the pupils´ answers were rather shorter than longer, and rather bare than developed)

5. Score 3.1 says that the pupils´ general needs to communicate in the foreign language (English or German) were saturated

6. Score 3.8 means that two ways of foreign language communication used in CLIL (e. g. the differentiation between 1st and 2nd stages) was appropriate for pupils

7. Score 3.9 says that the pupils understood the subject of Piano Playing as CLIL as a meaningful possibility of foreign language communication (it is a similar result as at the beginning of the CLIL trial)

8. Score 3.8 means that the load-bearing capacity of the pupil for CLIL was sufficient

9. Score 1.9 says that the expected (ideal) pupils´persistence – at least 5 school years in CLIL – was not satisfied in generally.

From all the research items the 10. item was the most critical. The concrete persistence of pupils in CLIL varied: 1 pupil (= 4%) 5.5 years, 2 pupils (= 8%) 5 years, 1 pupil (= 4%) 4 years, 2 pupils (= 8%) 3.5 years, 1 pupil (= 4%) 2.5 years, 2 pupils (= 8%) 2 years, 3 pupils (= 12%) 1.5 years, 11 pupils (= 44%) 1 year, 2 pupils (= 8%) 0.5 year.

Let us introduce the reasons why the pupils left CLIL or even the Primary Arts School (PAS) in Tisnov:

1. 3 pupils (= 12%) switched over to their new subject of ORGAN PLAYING as CLIL with the same teacher (= with me)

2. 2 pupils (= 8%) interrupted their CLIL-study because of a piano competition and higher piano study demands and continued in the standard way (I myself suggested the interruption)

3. 2 pupils (= 8%) were overloaded with their foreign language studies both under CLIL and at their other schools. They continued with the same teacher in the standard subject of PIANO PLAYING

4. 4 pupils (= 16%) showed worse results of their piano playing. Out of that number 2 pupils continued in the standard way and 2 pupils left the PAS. The worse results of the pupils were caused by the pupil´s indolence or parental divorce

5. 2 pupils (= 8%) terminated their piano playing and left the PAS

6. 1 pupil (= 4%) was long-term ill and could not continue; the pupil left the PAS

7. 1 pupil (= 4%) moved to another town and left the PAS

8. 1 pupil (= 4%) left the PAS because of traffic problems

7

9. 1 pupil (= 4%) did not manage his daily commuting and left the PAS

10. 4 pupils (= 16%) did not manage study demands after commencing a new school; the pupils left the PAS

11. 3 pupils (= 12%) had to prepare for exams at other schools; the pupils left the PAS

12. 1 pupil (= 4%) interrupted CLIL temporarily.

The final general score (mean) of 3.6 expresses the fact that the integration of the subject of PIANO PLAYING with communication in a foreign language (English or German) is more suitable for the pupils than not. But

1. Their relatively limited communicative possibilities and needs must be respected: currently approximately 500 dictionary lexical units. This number represents a motivational maximum (Vasicek, 2006, p. 3) and

2. Their expected study persistence is uncertain (because it is still voluntary by definition!).

2.4 Added Value

It is difficult to precisely define the added value (Prucha, Walterova & Mares, 1998, pp. 62 and 198). It was easier in CLIL because the proceeding of the (audible and visible) foreign language communication was indisputable. The above-mentioned communicative needs of pupils had to be taken into consideration (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, 2001, p. 53) although approximately 500 dictionary lexical units were not too much yet. (Of course it was more than nothing!)

3. Evaluation of CLIL at the Primary Arts School in Tisnov

The CLIL-concept at the Primary Arts School in Tisnov had undergone different evaluations:

1. My own auto-evaluations 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 (see also Vasicek, 2001, 2003, 2005a, 2005b, 2006)

2. Two internal school evaluations (2001, 2003)

3. Two external evaluations with experts from Masaryk University in Brno and from the Research Institute for Education in Prague (2004, 2006)

4. Autoevaluation (own assessment) of the Primary Arts School in Tisnov (Skara, 2007).

I have described and explained my above-mentioned action research in my own doctoral dissertation in a much more thorough way (Vasicek, 2007).

The CLIL-concept at the Primary Arts School in Tisnov should undergo complex evaluation (deadline: autumn 2008). This evaluation should be the summary of all these above-

8

mentioned pre-evaluations and should reach the necessary complexity (Douglas, 2002, p. 5), also scientific approaches (Brohy, 2004, pp. 145-146; Konzepte fuer den bilingualen Unterricht ..., 2006, p. 26). It means to develop different instruments for evaluation. Compare chapters 4 and 5 below.

4. Reformulations of Some of the Descriptorsof the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)for CLIL at the Primary Arts School in Tisnov

I have mainly been interested in acquisition of the lexical elements in CLIL but not only that. The wording of the descriptors of the CEFR is expected (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, 2001, p. 23). I suggest classifying

1. The above-mentioned approximately 500 (or 300-500) lexical units preliminarily as level A1 according to the CEFR as follows: “The basic user can understand (dozens of) known expressions of the subject of PIANO PLAYING and music doctrine and (several isolated) bare sentences, he/she can ask some one-word questions and answer them more or less in one-word way (always in the present tense), constantly with an evident accent.” This could be the recommended learning minimum (Mares & Krivohlavy, 1995, p. 141). There is a similar minimum recommended generally (Czailik et al., 2003, p. 14)

2. The next 1000-1500 lexical units preliminarily as the level A2 according to the CEFR as follows: “The basic user can understand (hundreds of) known expressions of the subject of PIANO PLAYING and music doctrine and also more developed sentences, he/she can ask questions having several words and answer them in the same way (it is possible always in the present tense), constantly with an evident accent”

3. The “sublevel” under the level A1 according to the CEFR preliminarily as follows: “The basic user can understand (several isolated) known expressions of the subject of PIANO PLAYING and music doctrine and (several isolated) bare sentences, he/she can express (possible) agreement or disagreement, constantly with an evident accent.” See supplement below.

5. Academic Trilingual (Czech – English – German) CLIL-Dictionary(not only) for CLIL at the Primary Arts School in Tisnov

The necessary optional pupil´s participation in CLIL (Beacco & Byram, 2003, s. 73) should be expressed finally (at least in one case) with the need to use a more comprehensive vocabulary. Longer coherent pupil answers representing presentational competence are expected. Not only one but two foreign languages should be used if the pupils are interested in it (Trim, 1998, p. 66).

For CLIL in future an academic trilingual (Czech – English – German) dictionary is appropriate. I compiled my own one consisting today of about 2000 pages and 30,000 lexical units in each language. A particular implementation of Italian as the “language for music” was necessary. It would be very good to approach at least the ancient dictionary ideal (Comenius, 1685, newly 1985) even if without illustrations. Integration of different experience of

9

otherness (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, 2001, p. 134), the multiple translations of the lexical units (from English to Czech, from German to Czech, pertinently from German to English and from English to German) had to be used. Two types of translation were used:

1. Free translation (individual or accurate) (or semantic accurate – Z.V.)

2. Word to word translation (verbatim or inaccurate).

This methodological solution should be incomparable (Dvorakova, Janik, Muchova et al., 2005, p. 102).

An example in German and English:

die Tonleiter = die Skala = the scale = the tone ladder.

(Ha-ha-ha!)

Why should the foreign language communication not be a little (maybe a little more) cheerful? And why not improve the Czech, English and German language skills if this possibility is mentioned? Compare the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2001, p. 136)! “Language understanding is a precondition for learning with comprehension” (Janik, 2005, p. 28)

Unfortunately, learning with comprehension is a problematic point of CLIL: “This question can be addressed as a challenge for educational research” (Janik, 2005, p. 28). The valid assessment requires the sampling of a range of relevant types of discourse (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, 2001, p. 178). There is the possibility to realize different lexical and grammatical triangulations. For example: to say one and the same thing in three different lexical ways and in three different grammatical ways. It could demonstrate high language competence of pupil in each (or only in the chosen) language. And hence: it would be appropriate to create a specific trilingual (Czech – English – German) “triangulate” CLIL-dictionary for these purposes (Vasicek, 2003, p. 8).

Conclusion

The CLIL-concept should continue at the Primary Arts School in Tisnov further. It is recommended not to give CLIL up (Konzepte fuer den bilingualen Unterricht ..., 2006, p. 25). The way of teaching proceeding in the spirit of CLIL at the Primary Arts School in Tisnov should be introduced in other subjects and other schools (Dvorakova, Janik, Muchova et al., 2005, p. 106). But: only between 10% and 20% of teachers could take up the role of innovator (Janik, 2002, p. 76)!

10

References:

Beacco, J.-C. & Byram, M. (2003) Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe: From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: Main Version. Draft 1 (rev.) Strasbourg: Council of Europe/Language Policy Division. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/FullGuide_EN.pdf

Brohy, C. (2004) Bilingual Teaching: Immersion in Switzerland, in B.Hufeisen & G. Neuner (Eds) The Plurilingualism Project: Tertiary Language Learning – German after English. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Brohy, C. (2002) Zwei- und mehrsprachiger (Sach-)Unterricht [Bi- and Multilingual (Content) Teaching] Bulletin VALS-ASLA: Sonderheft.

Comenius, J.A. (1657, new ed. 1913) Didaktika, to jest umeni umeleho vyucovani {Didactica magna} [The Great Didactics] Brno: Ustredni spolek jednot ucitelskych na Morave.

Comenius, J.A. (1685, new ed. 1985) Svet viditelny: Odmalovany a v ctverakem jazyku predstaveny {Orbis sensualium pictus quadrilinguis} [The Visible World: Painted and Presented in Four Languages]. Praha: Statni pedagogicke nakladatelstvi – Bratislava: Slovenske pedagogicke nakladatelstvi.

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2001).http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe (2006).http://www.eurydice.org/ressources/eurydice/pdf/0_integral/071EN.pdf

Czailik, M. et al. (2003) Navrh koncepcie integrovaneho vyucovania cudzich jazykov a nejazykovych predmetov na UKF v Nitre [Proposed Concept of Integrated Teaching of Foreign Subjects and Non-Language Subjects at Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra]. Nitra: Institut kvality vzdelavania pre krajiny strednej a vychodnej Europy.http://www.institut.ukf.sk/navrh.pdf

De Cillia, R. (1994) Was heisst hier eigentlich bilingual?: Formen und Modelle bilingualen Sprachunterrichts [What Does Bilingual Actually Mean Here?: Forms and Models of Bilingual Language Teaching], in F.Koschat & G.Wagner (Eds) Bilinguale Schulen: Lernen in zwei Sprachen. Wien: Bundesministerium fuer Unterricht und Kunst.

Douglas, D. (2002) Assessing Languages for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dvorakova, M., Janik, T., Muchova, H. et al. (2005) Playing the Piano with Communication in Foreign Language, in T. Janik (Ed) Intensive Programme TiFoLa: Teaching in Foreign Languages. Brno: Paido.

Janik, T. (2005) CLIL and the European Dimension in Education, in T. Janik (Ed) Intensive Programme TiFoLa: Teaching in Foreign Languages. Brno: Paido.

11

Janik, T. (2002) School Development in Selected European Countries: Czech Republic, in R. Seebauer (Ed) Current Trends in Education in Europe. Wien/Brno: Paido.

Kelly, M., Grenfell, M. et al. (2002) The Training of Teachers of a Foreign Language : Developments in Europe : Main Report : A Report to the European Commission. Directorate General for Education and Culture. Revised Report. August 2002.http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/executive_summary_full_en.pdf

Konzepte fuer den bilingualen Unterricht: Erfahrungsbericht und Vorschlaege zur Weiterentwicklung [Concepts for Bilingual Teaching: Experience Report and Recommendations for Further Development]. (Bericht des Schulausschusses vom 10.04.2006). Sekretariat der staendigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Laender in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – II A.http://www.kmk.org/doc/publ/Konzepte-bilingualer-Unterricht_10-04-2006.pdf

Kotasek, J. et al. (2001) Narodni program rozvoje vzdelavani v Ceske republice: Bila kniha. [National Programme for Educational Development in the Czech Republic: White Book]. Praha: Ustav pro informace ve vzdelavani – nakladatelstvi Tauris.

Krumm, H.-J. (2001) Der Mensch ist mehrsprachig [The Man is Multilingual].http://www.idt-2001.ch/support/Presse/Artikel.htm

Krumm, H.-J. (2004) Language Policies and Plurilingualism, in B. Hufeisen & G. Neuner (Eds) The Plurilingualism Project: Tertiary Language Learning – German after English. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Lamsfuss-Schenk, S. & Wolff, D. (1999) Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht: Fuenf kritische Anmerkungen zum state of the art [Bilingual Content Teaching: Five Critical Comments to State of the Art]. Zeitschrift fuer Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht [Online], 4(2).http://www.spz.tu-darmstadt.de/projekt_ejournal/jg_04_2/beitrag/lamsfuss2.htm

Mares, J. & Krivohlavy, J. (1995) Komunikace ve skole [Communication at School]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

Marsh, D. (2001) CLIL/EMILE: The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/david_marsh-report.pdf

Marsh, D. (2006) English as Medium of Instruction in the New Global Linguistic Order: Global Characteristics, Local Consequences. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.http://www.metsmac.org/2007/proceedings/2006/Marsh-D-METSMaC-2006.pdf

Marsh, D. (?) Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages.http://www.clilcompendium.com/1uk.pdf

Portmann-Tselikas, P. R. (1998) Sprachfoerderung im Unterricht: Handbuch fuer den Sach- und Sprachunterricht in mehrsprachigen Klassen [Language Promotion in Teaching: Handbook for Content and Language Teaching in Multilingual Classes]. Zuerich: Orell Fuessli Verlag.

12

Prucha, J. (2001) Bila kniha o rozvoji vzdelavani : Vyzva pro cesky pedagogicky vyzkum [The White Book for Educational Development : A Challenge for the Czech Educational Research], in H. Lukasova-Kantorkova & P. Kveton (Eds) Nove moznosti vzdelavani a pedagogicky vyzkum: 9. celostatni konference CAPV s mezinarodni ucasti: Sbornik prispevku. Ostrava: Ostravska univerzita.

Prucha, J. (2002) Moderni pedagogika [Contemporary Education]. Praha: Portal.

Prucha, J. (2000) Prehled pedagogiky: Uvod do studia oboru [Outline of Education: Rudiments of the Field of Study]. Praha: Portal.

Prucha, J. (1999) Vzdelavani a skolstvi ve svete: Zaklady mezinarodni komparace vzdelavacich systemu [Education and Schools in the World: Fundamentals of International Comparison of School Systems ]. Praha: Portal.

Prucha, J., Walterova, E. & Mares, J. (1998) Pedagogicky slovnik [Dictionary of Education]. Praha: Portal.

Sheils, J. (1993) Communication in the Modern Languages Classroom. Strasbourg: Council of Europa Press.

Skara, J. (2007) Vlastni hodnoceni skoly (Autoevaluace) [School Assessment (Autoevaluation)]. Tisnov: Primary Arts School Tisnov (PC-version, 33 pp. + supplements).

Sygmund, D. (2005) Reflections on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), in T. Janik (Ed) Intensive Programme TiFoLa: Teaching in Foreign Languages. Brno: Paido.

Ucebni osnovy hry na klavir pro pripravne studium a I. stupen zakladniho studia na lidovych skolach umeni : Hudebni obor [Curriculum of PIANO PLAYING for Preparatory Study and for 1st Grade of Elementary Study at Primary Arts Schools : Music Section] (1985). Praha: Statni pedagogicke nakladatelstvi.

Vasicek, Z. (2005a) CLIL, Deutsch, Englisch und das Sachfach „Klavierspiel“ [CLIL, German, English and Content Subject of “Piano Playing”], in B. Sorger (Ed) XIII. Internationale Tagung der Deutschlehrerinnen und Deutschlehrer: Thesenband. Graz : Der Internationale Deutschlehrerverband.Full text in:http://www.idt-2005.at/beitraege/detail.php?id=483

Vasicek, Z. (2001) Individualni vyucovani klaviru s cizim jazykem jako komunikacnim prostredkem [Individual Piano Teaching with a Foreign Language as the Communication Means], in H. Lukasova-Kantorkova & P. Kveton (Eds) Nove moznosti vzdelavani a pedagogicky vyzkum: 9. celostatni konference CAPV s mezinarodni ucasti: Sbornik prispevku. Ostrava: Ostravska univerzita.

Vasicek, Z. (2003) Predmet hra na klavir na ZUS integrovany s komunikaci v cizim jazyce (anglicky nebo nemecky): Autoevaluace zacatku druhe faze pokusneho vyucovani [The Subject of “Piano Playing” at Primary Arts School Integrated with Communication in a Foreign Language (English or German): Autoevaluation of the Beginning of the Second

13

Phase of Teaching Trial], in J. Nemec (Ed) Socialni a kulturni souvislosti vychovy a vzdelavani: 11. konference CAPV: Sbornik anotaci prispevku [CD-ROM]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.Full text in:http://www.ped.muni.cz/capv11/2sekce/2_CAPV_Vasicek.pdf

Vasicek, Z. (2007) Predmet hra na klavir na ZUS integrovany s komunikaci v cizim jazyce (anglicky nebo nemecky) cili CLIL [The Subject of Piano Playing at Primary Arts School Integrated with Communication in a Foreign Language (English or German) or CLIL]. Doctoral dissertation. Ostrava: Ostravska univerzita (PC-version, 285 pp.).

Vasicek, Z. (2006) Predmet hra na klavir na ZUS integrovany s komunikaci v cizim jazyce (anglicky nebo nemecky): Nova autoevaluace z pohledu ucitele ZUS a VS [The Subject of “Piano Playing” at Primary Arts School Integrated with Communication in a Foreign Language (English or German): A New Autoevaluation from the Point of View of Teacher of the Primary Arts School in Tisnov and of the Janacek Academy of Music and Performing Arts in Brno], in M. Kocurova (Ed) Soucasne metodologicke pristupy a strategie pedagogickeho vyzkumu: 14. konference CAPV: Sbornik anotaci [CD-ROM]. Plzen: Zapadoceska univerzita.Full text in:http://www.kpg.zcu.cz/capv/HTML/122/122.pdf

Vasicek, Z. (2005b) Subject “Piano Playing” in the Primary Arts School Tisnov Integrated with Communication in a Foreign Language (English or German).http://www.ped.muni.cz/weduresearch/texty/Vasicek_CLIL.doc

Vlasakova, A. (2003) Klavirni pedagogika: Prvni kroky na ceste ke klavirnimu umeni [Piano Education: First Steps on the Way to Art Mastery]. Praha: Nakladatelstvi Akademie muzickych umeni v Praze.

Ytreberg, L. (1997) Methods, in P. Doyé & A. Hurrell (Eds) Foreign Language Learning in Primary Schools. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

14

Supplement – Working paper.The smallest trilingual dictionary for the subject “Piano Playing as CLIL”.

(Czech language is simplified.)

1. Sloveso 1. Verb 1. Das Verb

to sloveso the verb (ðә vә:b) das Verb (das verp)

hrat – zastavit to play – to stop(tu plei – tu stop)

spielen – stoppen(shpi:ln – shtopn)

Hraj! – Zastav! Play! – Stop! (plei – stop) Spiel! – Stopp! (shpi:l – shtop)

1. ja hraji 1. I am playing (ai æm pleiiŋ) 1. ich spiele (ich shpi:lә)2. ty hrajes 2. you are playing (ju: a: pleiiŋ) 2. du spielst (du: shpi:lst)

2. Podstatne jmeno 2. Substantive 2. Das Substantiv

to podstatne jmeno the substantive (ðә sabstәntiv) das Substantiv (das zupstanti:f)

[Hrat:] [To play:] (tu plei) [Spielen:] (shpi:ln)

„Co?“ “What?” (wot) „Was?“ (vas)

ta stupnice the scale (ðә skeil) die Tonleiter (di: to:nlaitr)ten akord the chord (ðә ko:d) 1. der Akkord (de:r a’kort)

4. den Akkord (de:n a’kort)

to cviceni the practice (ðә præktis) die Uebung (di: y:buŋ)ta etuda the etude (ði ei’tju:d) die Etuede (di: e’ty:dә)

ta skladba the composition(ðә ,kompә’zishәn)

die Komposition(di: kompozi’cio:n)

od … by … (bai) von … (fon)

3. Prislovce 3. Adverb 3. Das Adverb

to prislovce the adverb (ði ædvә:b) das Adverb (das at’verp)

[Hrat:] [To play:] (tu plei) [Spielen:] (shpi:ln)

„Jak?“ “How?” (hau) „Wie?“ (vi:)

rychle – pomalu fast – slowly(fa:st – slәuli)

schnell – langsam¨(shnel – laŋzam)

hlasite – tise loudly – softly (laudli – softli) laut – leise (laut – laizә)

spravne – chybne correctly – incorrectly(kә’rektli – ,inkә’rektli)

richtig – falsch(richtik – falsh)

15