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

Abstract

Abstract

In Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes, students learn some non-language content subjects through a second/foreign language (L2), and their content knowledge is often assessed in their L2. It follows that students are likely to face challenges in both cognitive and linguistic aspects in assessments. Yet, there has been limited research exploring whether and how CLIL teachers help their students cope with those challenges. This multi-case study seeks to address this issue by investigating the instructional and assessment practices of two science teachers in Hong Kong secondary schools. The two teachers presented an interesting contrast – one teacher incorporated both implicit and explicit language instruction in her lessons, so her students were well prepared for the assessment tasks; the other teacher’s instructional and assessment practices were heavily content-oriented, and it is not sure whether students mastered both content and L2. These findings illuminate CLIL pedagogy and teacher education.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18028.lo
2019-09-25
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G. J., & de Bot, K.
    (2006) Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 121(1), 75–93. 10.1080/13803610500392160
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500392160 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alderson, J. C. & Wall, D.
    (1993) Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115–129. 10.1093/applin/14.2.115
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.115 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A.
    (2014) The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 118–136. 10.1177/1362168813505381
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813505381 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cammarata, L.
    (2016) Foreign language education and the development of inquiry-driven language programs: Key challenges and curricular planning strategies. InL. Cammarata (Ed.), Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp.123–143). New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203850497
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850497 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cammarata, L., & Haley, C.
    (2018) Integrated content, language, and literacy instruction in a Canadian French immersion context: A professional development journey. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 332–348. 10.1080/13670050.2017.1386617
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1386617 [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. Christie, F.
    (2002) Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Earl, L.
    (2013) Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gablasova, D.
    (2014) Issues in the assessment of bilingually educated students: Expressing subject knowledge through L1 and L2. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 151–164. 10.1080/09571736.2014.891396
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.891396 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gibbons, P.
    (2015) Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hönig, I.
    (2010) Assessment in CLIL: Theoretical and empirical research. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hughes, A.
    (2003) Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kong, S., Hoare, P., & Chi, Y. P.
    (2011) Immersion education in China: Teachers’ perspectives. Frontiers of Education in China, 6(1), 68–91. 10.1007/s11516‑011‑0122‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11516-011-0122-6 [Google Scholar]
  15. Koopman, G. J., Skeet, J., & de Graaff, R.
    (2014) Exploring content teachers’ knowledge of language pedagogy: A report on a small-scale research project in a Dutch CLIL context. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 123–136. 10.1080/09571736.2014.889974
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889974 [Google Scholar]
  16. Krathwohl, D. R.
    (2002) A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 [Google Scholar]
  17. Li, D. C. S.
    (2017) Multilingual Hong Kong: Languages, literacies and identities. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑44195‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44195-5 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lin, A. M. Y.
    (2016) Language across the curriculum: Theory and practice. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lin, A. M. Y., & Wu, Y.
    (2015) ‘May I speak Cantonese?’ – Co-constructing a scientific proof in an EFL junior secondary science classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 289–305. 10.1080/13670050.2014.988113
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.988113 [Google Scholar]
  20. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
    (2012) The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lo, Y. Y.
    (2014) Collaboration between L2 and content subject teachers in CBI: Contrasting beliefs and attitudes. RELC Journal, 45(2), 181–196. 10.1177/0033688214535054
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688214535054 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lo, Y. Y., & Fung, D.
    (2018) Assessments in CLIL: the interplay between cognitive and linguistic demands and their progression in secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2018.1436519
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1436519 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lo, Y. Y., & Jeong, H.
    (2018) Impact of genre-based pedagogy on students’ academic literacy development in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Linguistics and Education, 47, 36–46. 10.1016/j.linged.2018.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. (2016) Vers une approche intégrée en immersion. Montréal: Les Éditions CEC.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Massler, U., Stotz, D., & Queisser, C.
    (2014) Assessment instruments for primary CLIL: The conceptualisation and evaluation of test tasks. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 137–150. 10.1080/09571736.2014.891371
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.891371 [Google Scholar]
  27. Morton, T., & Jakonen, T.
    (2016) Integration of language and content through languaging in CLIL classroom interaction: a conversation analysis perspective. InT. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.171–188). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145‑011
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-011 [Google Scholar]
  28. Morton, T., & Llinares, A.
    (2017) Content and Language Integrated Learning: Type of programme or pedagogical model?InA. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp.1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.47.01mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.01mor [Google Scholar]
  29. Navés, T.
    (2011) How promising are the results of integrating content and language for EFL writing and overall EFL proficiency?InY. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning (pp.103–128). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Trevisan, M. S., & Brown, A. H.
    (2013) Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Pawan, F.
    (2008) Content-area teachers and scaffolded instruction for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1450–1462. 10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pérez-Cañado, M. L.
    (2016): Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-service teacher perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(3), 266–295. 10.1080/13670050.2014.980778
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.980778 [Google Scholar]
  33. Reierstam, H.
    (2015) Assessing language or content? A comparative study of the assessment practices in three Swedish upper secondary CLIL schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of GothenburgRetrieved from hdl.handle.net/2077/40701
  34. Shaw, S., & Imam, H.
    (2013) Assessment of international students through the medium of English: Ensuring validity and fairness in content-based examinations. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(4), 452–475. 10.1080/15434303.2013.866117
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2013.866117 [Google Scholar]
  35. Tan, M.
    (2011) Mathematics and science teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of language in content learning. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 325–342. 10.1177/1362168811401153
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811401153 [Google Scholar]
  36. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G.
    (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17(2), 89–100. 10.1111/j.1469‑7610.1976.tb00381.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x [Google Scholar]
  37. Yin, R. K.
    (2009) Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18028.lo
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18028.lo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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