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



Drawing on Lemke’s (1990) “thematic patterns” theory, this research proposes a “Concept + Language Mapping” (CLM) approach and tried it out in an English Medium Instruction (EMI) biology classroom in Hong Kong. Lessons were observed and samples of student work were collected during the intervention with student/teacher interviews conducted afterwards. A quasi-experimental design was also adopted to estimate the impact of the CLM approach. The analysis indicated that CLM facilitated the development of both content and language knowledge.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ausubel, D. P.
    (1968) Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N.
    (2005) Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events. A micro ethnographic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cammarata, L., & Ó Ceallaigh, T. J.
    (2018) Teacher education and professional development for immersion and content-based instruction: Research on programs, practices, and teacher educators. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6(2), 153–161. 10.1075/jicb.00004.cam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.00004.cam [Google Scholar]
  4. Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D.
    (2012) Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. Modern Language Journal, 96(2):153–289. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2012.01330.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Cenoz, J.
    (2016) Discussion: Towards an education perspective in CLIL language policy and pedagogical practice. InY. Ruiz de Zarobe (Ed.), Content and language integrated learning: Language policy and pedagogical practice. London: Routledge.
    [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. Cheng, M. M. W., & Gilbert, J. K.
    (2015) Students’ visualization of diagrams representing the human circulatory system: The use of spatial isomorphism and representational conventions. International Journal of Science Education, 37(1), 136–161. 10.1080/09500693.2014.969359
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.969359 [Google Scholar]
  8. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Creswell, J. W.
    (2003) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dale, L., Ron, O., & Verspoor, M.
    (2018) Searching for identity and focus: Towards an analytical framework for language teachers in bilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 366–383. 10.1080/13670050.2017.1383351
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1383351 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2013) A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualizing content-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]
  12. (2018) Postscriptum: Research pathways in CLIL/Immersion instructional practices and teacher development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 384–387. 10.1080/13670050.2017.1384448
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1384448 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T.
    (2014) Content and language integrated learning. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 117–122. 10.1080/09571736.2014.891370
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.891370 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gibbons, P.
    (2009) English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1993) Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and education, 5(2), 93–116. 10.1016/0898‑5898(93)90026‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(93)90026-7 [Google Scholar]
  16. He, P. C., & Lin, A. M. Y.
    (2018) Becoming a “language-aware” content teacher: Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) teacher professional development as a collaborative, dynamic, dialogic process. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6(2), 163–189. 10.1075/jicb.17009.he
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17009.he [Google Scholar]
  17. Lemke, J. L.
    (1990) Talking science: Language, learning and values. Westport, CT: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1998) Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions. Conference on Science Education in Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lin, A. M. Y.
    (2007) What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’? Activity theory, conversation analysis and analysis of pedagogical practices. Pedagogies, 2(2), 77–94. 10.1080/15544800701343943
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800701343943 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2016) Language across the curriculum & CLIL in English as an Additional Language (EAL) Contexts: Theory and practice. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑1802‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1802-2 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lin, A. M. Y., & Man, E. Y. F.
    (2009) Bilingual education: Southeast Asian perspectives. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. 10.5790/hongkong/9789622099586.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.5790/hongkong/9789622099586.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
    (2012) The roles of language in CLIL. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lorenzo, F.
    (2016) Genre-based curricula: multilingual academic literacy in content and language integrated learning. InY. Ruiz de Zarobe (Ed.), Content and language integrated learning: Language policy and pedagogical practice. London: Routledge.
    [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. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P.
    (2003) Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Morton, T.
    (2018) Reconceptualizing and describing teachers’ knowledge of language for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 275–286. 10.1080/13670050.2017.1383352
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1383352 [Google Scholar]
  27. Morton, T., & Llinares, A.
    (2017) Content and Language Learning (CLIL): Type of programme or pedagogical model?InA. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp.105–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.47.01mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.01mor [Google Scholar]
  28. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O.
    (2011) Learning from animated concept maps with concurrent audio narration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79, 209–230. 10.1080/00220970903292918
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903292918 [Google Scholar]
  29. Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U.
    (2016) Conceptualizing integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145 [Google Scholar]
  30. Novak, J. D.
    (2010) Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203862001
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203862001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Johansen, G. T.
    (1983) The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67(5), 625–645. 10.1002/sce.3730670511
    https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670511 [Google Scholar]
  32. Osborne, J.
    (2014) Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. InLederman, N. G. & Abell, S. K. (Ed.), Handbook of research on science education (VolumeII). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Reeves, T. C.
    (2000) Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design experiments” and other development research strategies. International perspectives on instructional technology research for the 21st century, New Orleans, LA.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Rose, D., & Martin, J. R.
    (2012) Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.
    (2016) Introduction – CLIL implementation: From policy-makers to individual initiatives. InY. Ruiz de Zarobe (Ed.), Content and language integrated learning: Language policy and pedagogical practice. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Wellington, J. J., & Osborne, J.
    (2001) Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]

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