1887
image of Student-teacher interaction in CLIL and non-CLIL elementary education
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study analyzes interaction in a primary school science classroom. We compare the verbal scaffolding strategies used by a teacher during lessons from the same instructional unit taught in CLIL (English) and regular (Spanish) contexts. Results show that although there was no difference in the amount of information (‘content’) made available to students through the interactions, different verbal strategies were used ( and were more frequent in Spanish and in English) and that students were more active in engaging with science knowledge in the Spanish context. We discuss these findings in relation to the level of abstraction the teacher supported in interacting about science in the regular session, with implications for supporting children in learning both content and language in CLIL contexts.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.21005.ale
2021-12-10
2022-05-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R.
    (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bustos, A., Montenegro, C., Tapia, A., & Calfual, K.
    (2017) Leer para aprender: Cómo interactúan los profesores con sus alumnos en la Educación Primaria [Reading to learn: How teachers interact with their students in primary education]. Ocnos: Revista de Estudios Sobre Lectura, 16(1), 89–106. doi:  10.18239/ocnos_2017.16.1.1208
    https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2017.16.1.1208 [Google Scholar]
  3. Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A.
    (2001) Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411. doi:  10.1598/RRQ.36.4.3
    https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.4.3 [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. Cummins, J.
    (1999) BICS and CALP: Clarifying the distinction (Report No. ED438551). ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2013) A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 1–38. 10.1515/eujal‑2013‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2016) Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. InT. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (pp.29–54). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145‑005
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-005 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2017) Discourse analysis and CLIL. InA. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp.167–182). John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/lllt.47.10dal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.10dal [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. Downing, A., & Locke, P.
    (2006) English grammar: A university course. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203087640
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203087640 [Google Scholar]
  11. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J.
    (2007) Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellison, M.
    (2018) CLIL in the primary school context. InGarton, S., & Copland, F. (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Teaching English to Young Learners. (pp.247–268). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315623672‑17
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315623672-17 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fang, Z.
    (2006) The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520. 10.1080/09500690500339092
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500339092 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gajo, L.
    (2007) Linguistic knowledge and subject knowledge: How does bilingualism contribute to subject development?International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 563–581. 10.2167/beb460.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb460.0 [Google Scholar]
  15. García-Rodicio, H., Melero, M. A. & Izquierdo, M. B.
    (2018) A comparison of reading aloud, silent reading and follower reading. Which is best for comprehension? Una comparación de lectura en voz alta, lectura en silencio y lectura de seguimiento. ¿Cuál es mejor para la comprensión?Infancia y Aprendizaje, 41(1), 138–164. 10.1080/02103702.2017.1364038
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2017.1364038 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gibbons, P.
    (2003) Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. 10.2307/3588504
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588504 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2006) Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom: Students, teachers, and researchers. Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2015) Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning (2nd ed.). Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kayi-Aydar, H.
    (2013) Scaffolding language learning in an academic ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 67(3), 324–335. 10.1093/elt/cct016
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct016 [Google Scholar]
  21. Leisen, J.
    (2010) Handbuch sprachförderung im fach: Sprachsensibler sachunterricht in der praxis. [Handbook on language support in subjects: Language-sensitive teaching in practice]. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lemke, J.
    (1990) Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lin, A. M.
    (2016) Language across the curriculum & CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑1802‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1802-2 [Google Scholar]
  24. Llinares, A., & Morton, T.
    (Eds.) (2017) Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (Vol.47). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.47.08lli
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.08lli [Google Scholar]
  25. Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R.
    (2010) Writing and speaking in the history class: Data from CLIL and first language contexts. InC. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp.125–144). John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.7.07lli
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.07lli [Google Scholar]
  26. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
    (2012) The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lorenzo, F.
    (2007) An Analytical Framework of Language Integration in L2 Content-based Courses: The European Dimension, Language and Education, 21:6, 502–514. 10.2167/le708.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/le708.0 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lorenzo, F., S. Casal, and P. Moore
    2010 ‘The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: key findings from the Andalusian sections evaluation project,’ Applied Linguistics, 418–42. 10.1093/applin/amp041
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp041 [Google Scholar]
  29. McNeil, L.
    (2012) Using talk to scaffold referential questions for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 396–404. 10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., Frigols, M. J.
    (2008) Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in bilingual and multilingual education. MacMillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Montali, J., & Lewandowski, L.
    (1996) Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer for average and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 271–279. doi:  10.1177/002221949602900305
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949602900305 [Google Scholar]
  32. Nikula, T.
    (2017) ‘What’s the moment thingy?’–On the emergence of subject-specific knowledge in CLIL classroom interaction. InLangman, J. & Hansen-Thomas, H. (eds.) Discourse analytic perspectives on STEM education (pp.11–29). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑55116‑6_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55116-6_2 [Google Scholar]
  33. Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Llinares, A.
    (2013) CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 70–100. 10.1075/jicb.1.1.04nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.1.04nik [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). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145‑004
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Patterson, A., Roman, D., Friend, M., Osborne, J., & Donovan, B.
    (2018) Reading for meaning: The foundational knowledge every teacher of science should have. International Journal of Science Education, 40(3), 291–307. doi:  10.1080/09500693.2017.1416205
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1416205 [Google Scholar]
  36. Prior, S. M., Fenwick, K. D., Saunders, K. S., Ouellette, R., O’Quinn, C., & Harvey, S.
    (2011) Comprehension after oral and silent reading: Does grade level matter?Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 183–194. doi:  10.1080/19388071.2010.497202
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2010.497202 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rodríguez, D., Lucero, M. & Montanero, M.
    (2013) Análisis del discurso síncrono y asíncrono en entornos virtuales de aprendizaje universitario. Revista de Investigación en Educación, 243–256.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rojas Rojas, S. P., Meneses, A., & Sánchez Miguel, E.
    (2019) Teachers’ scaffolding science reading comprehension in low-income schools: how to improve achievement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1827–1847. doi:  10.1080/09500693.2019.1641855
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1641855 [Google Scholar]
  39. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J. M. & Gallardo del Puerto, F.
    (2011) Content and foreign language integrated learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts. Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0171‑3
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0171-3 [Google Scholar]
  40. San Isidro, X., & Lasagabaster, D.
    (2019) Code-switching in a CLIL multilingual setting: a longitudinal qualitative study. International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(3), 336–356. 10.1080/14790718.2018.1477781
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2018.1477781 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sánchez, E., García, J. R., Rosales, J., De Sixte, R., & Castellano, N.
    (2008) Elementos para analizar la interacción entre estudiantes y profesores: ¿qué ocurre cuando se consideran diferentes dimensiones y diferentes unidades de análisis? [Analyzing teacher-student’s interactions: What happens when different units of analysis and different focuses are considered?]. Revista de Educación, 346, 105–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Schleppegrell, M. J.
    (2004) The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410610317
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610317 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2016) Content-based language teaching with functional grammar in the elementary school. Language Teaching, 49(1), 116–128. doi:  10.1017/S0261444814000093
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000093 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M.
    (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Tang, K-S.
    (2019) The role of language in scaffolding content and language integration in CLIL science classrooms. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7(2), 315–318. 10.1075/jicb.00007.tan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.00007.tan [Google Scholar]
  46. van Kampen, E., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A.
    (2018) Content and language integrated learning in the Netherlands: teachers’ self-reported pedagogical practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 222–236. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2016.1154004
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1154004 [Google Scholar]
  47. Vázquez, V. P., & Ellison, M.
    (2018) Examining teacher roles and competences in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Linguarum Arena: Revista de Estudos em Didática de Línguas da Universidade do Porto, 4, 65–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A. C., & Resnick, L. B.
    (2006) Accountable talk in Reading comprehension instruction. Technical Report. National Center for Research and Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. University of California.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G.
    (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.21005.ale
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.21005.ale
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: scaffolding strategies ; primary science ; classroom interaction ; CLIL
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