1887
Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In Australia, content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is commonly implemented as a way to encourage innovation in language teaching. This paper explores how Japanese can also be used to innovate the teaching of content. Qualitative data are drawn from a Year 8 science Japanese CLIL classroom in a secondary school with an opt-in CLIL program. In the class, a monolingual (in English) science teacher was co-teaching with a Japanese language teacher. Findings from observations, after-class reflections, teacher and student interviews, a student survey and work samples revealed that students were highly engaged with the Japanese component of their science lessons. Kanji was further positioned as a way for students to deepen their understanding of scientific concepts. However, there also appeared to be a separation in the way both teachers and students spoke about Japanese language use and learning science. Implications of these findings are discussed in the paper.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18021.tur
2019-09-25
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abe, Y.
    (2002) 漢字という障害 [An Obstacle Named Kanji]. Shakai gengogaku, 2, 37–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2015) ことばのバリアフリー: 情報保障とコミュニケーションの 障害学 [Barrier-free Language: Disability studies of information assurance and communication]. Tokyo: Seikatsu shoin.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andō, M.
    (1942) 日本語のむづかしさ [The difficulty of Japanese language]. Nihongo, 2(3), 4–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V.
    (2008) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar]
  5. Bravo, M. A.
    (2017) Cultivating teacher knowledge of the role of language in science: A model of elementary grade pre-service teacher preparation. InA. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition (pp.25–40). Springer: Switzerland. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43516‑9_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43516-9_2 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D.
    (2014) Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. 10.1093/applin/amt011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011 [Google Scholar]
  7. Coyle, D.
    (2007) Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. 10.2167/beb459.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0 [Google Scholar]
  8. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cross, R., & Gearon, M.
    (2013) Research and evaluation of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach to teaching and learning languages in Victorian schools. Melbourne Australia: Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2013) A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualizing content and language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253. 10.1515/eujal‑2013‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T.
    (2014) ‘You can stand under my umbrella‘: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. 10.1093/applin/amu010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu010 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2016) Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. InE. Dafouz & T. Nikula (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.29–54). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145‑005
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-005 [Google Scholar]
  13. De Jong, E.
    (2002) Effective bilingual education: From theory to academic achievement in a two-way bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 65–84. 10.1080/15235882.2002.10668699
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2002.10668699 [Google Scholar]
  14. De Kretser, A., & Spence-Brown, R.
    (2010) The current state of Japanese language education in Australian schools. Melbourne: Education Services Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Department of Education and Training (DET)
    Department of Education and Training (DET) (2017) Languages provision in Victorian Government schools 2016 Retrieved from www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/languages/2016_Languages_provision_report.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Eurydice
    Eurydice (2006) Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Eurydice. Retrieved fromwww.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/eurydice/CLIL_EN.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M.
    (2017) Analysing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–14. 10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fielding, R., & Harbon, L.
    (2015) Implementng a content and language integrated learning program in New South Wales primary schools: Teachers’ perceptions of the challenges and opportunities. Babel, 49(2), 16+
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fortune, T. W., & Tedick, D. J.
    (2008) One-way, two-way and indigenous immersion: A call for cross-fertilization. InT. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp.3–21). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847690371‑004
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690371-004 [Google Scholar]
  20. Genesee, F.
    (1987) Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual children. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2004) Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, M. A. K., & Mattheissen, C.
    (2004) An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition), London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hovhannisyan, A.
    (2018) Japanese language education in the greater East Asia co-prosperity sphere and the Kokuji Mondai (National Script Problem). InK. Hashimoto (Ed.), Japanese Language and Soft Power in Asia (pp.65–81). Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑5086‑2_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5086-2_4 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U.
    (2013) The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267–284. 10.1080/13670050.2013.777385
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777385 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jäppinen, A.
    (2005) Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 147–168. 10.1080/09500780508668671
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780508668671 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee, W., & Lee, J. S.
    (2017) Math instruction is not universal: Language specific pedagogical knowledge in Korean/English two-way immersion programs. Bilingual Research Journal. 10.1080/15235882.2017.1380729
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1380729 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lindholm-Leary, K.
    (2001) Dual language education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853595332
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595332 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lindholm-Leary, K., & Genesee, F.
    (2010) Alternative educational programs for English language learners. InCalifornia Department of Education (Eds.), Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches (pp.323–382). Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lyster, R.
    (2007) Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.18 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lyster, R., & Mori, H.
    (2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 321–341. 10.1017/S0272263106060128
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060128 [Google Scholar]
  31. Martin-Beltrán, M.
    (2010) The two-way language bridge: Co-constructing bilingual language learning opportunities. Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 254–277. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2010.01020.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01020.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T.
    (2015) A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – Mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57. 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924 [Google Scholar]
  33. Nikula, T.
    (2015) Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 54, 14–27. 10.1016/j.system.2015.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  34. Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F.
    (2016) More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and bilingual education. InT. Nikula, C. Dalton-Puffer, A. Llinares, & F. Lorenzo (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.1–25). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145‑004
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R.
    (2002) Language and literacy in bilingual children. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853595721
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595721 [Google Scholar]
  36. Paran, A.
    (2013) Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth?Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342. 10.1515/applirev‑2013‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0014 [Google Scholar]
  37. Pérez-Cañado, M. L.
    (2012) CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. 10.1080/13670050.2011.630064
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.630064 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Roquet, H.
    (2015) The linguistic impact of a CLIL science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80–90. 10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rasulo, M., de Meo, A., & de Santo, M.
    (2017) Processing science through content and language integrated learning (CLIL): A teacher’s practicum. InA. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition (pp.305–322). Springer: Switzerland. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43516‑9_17
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43516-9_17 [Google Scholar]
  40. Oliveira, L. C.
    (2017) A language-based approach to content instruction (LACI) in science for English language learners. InA. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition (pp.41–56). Springer: Switzerland. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43516‑9_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43516-9_3 [Google Scholar]
  41. Silva, C., Weinburgh, M., Malloy, R., Horak Smith, K., & Nettles Marshall, J.
    (2012) Toward integration: An instructional model of science and academic language. Childhood Education, March/April, 91–95. 10.1080/00094056.2012.662119
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2012.662119 [Google Scholar]
  42. Smala, S.
    (2016) CLIL in Queensland: The evolution of ‘immersion’. Babel, 50(2–3), 20.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Swain, M.
    (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. InS. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2000) French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199–212. 10.1017/S0267190500200123
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500200123 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tanaka, K.
    (2011) 漢字が日本語をほろぼす [Kanji are destroying Japanese language]. Tokyo: Kadokawa SSC Shinsho.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Tedick, D. J., & Young, A. I.
    (2014) Fifth grade two-way immersion students’ responses to form-focused instruction. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 784–807. 10.1093/applin/amu066
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu066 [Google Scholar]
  47. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P.
    (2002) A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement: Final report. Santa Cruz, CA/Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Turner, M.
    (2013) Content-based Japanese language teaching in Australian schools: Is CLIL a good fit?Japanese Studies, 33(3), 315–330. 10.1080/10371397.2013.846211
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10371397.2013.846211 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2015) The significance of affordances on teachers’ choices: Embedding Japanese across the curriculum in Australian secondary schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(3), 276–290. 10.1080/07908318.2015.1085063
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2015.1085063 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ullmann, M.
    (1999) History and geography through French: CLIL in a UK secondary school. InJ. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes (pp.96–105). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Weinburgh, M. H., & Silva, C.
    (2010) Science content knowledge and language acquisition: Replacing, reloading, repositioning, revealing and retiring academic words. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Sacramento, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Wode, H.
    (1999) Language learning in European immersion classes. InJ. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes (pp.16–25). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18021.tur
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18021.tur
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): CLIL , Japanese , science and secondary education
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error