1887
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The article addresses how heterogenous primary school students in Switzerland use learning opportunities to develop their English-speaking competences offered in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Based on the lesson study approach, two task-based CLIL modules combining the subjects English and art were implemented in different primary classes with a focus on three case pupils in each class who represent high-attaining, average and low-attaining learners of English. Their spoken communication was analysed with an adapted version of the Communication Orientation of Language Teaching (COLT) observation scheme (Allen et al., 1983) and according to the (Coyle et al., 2010). Surveys were also conducted to investigate learners’ and teachers’ perception of the learning opportunities. The results indicate that the high-attaining and average students used the provided opportunities almost equally for developing their oral English competences. Although the low-attaining learners used the CLIL tasks in a significantly different way, they also achieved the objectives for speaking in English about art.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.21015.fra
2023-09-14
2024-06-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abendroth-Timmer, D.
    (2007) Zur sprachenpolitischen Bedeutung und motivationalen Wirkung des Einsatzes von bilingualen Modulen in sprachlich heterogenen Lerngruppen. InD. Caspari, W. Hallet, A. Wegner, & W. Zydatiss (Eds.), Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule – Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung (pp.177–191). Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen, P., Fröhlich, M., & Spada, N.
    (1983) The Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching: An Observation Scheme. TESOL 83. The Question of Control. Selected Papers from the Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 171, 231–252.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bechler, S.
    (2014) Bilinguale Module in der Grundschule – Integriertes Inhalts- und Sprachlernen im Fächerverbund Mensch, Natur und Kultur. Peter Lang. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/phzh/detail.action?docID=1632364. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑04246‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-04246-7 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bellet, S.
    (2017) Mehrsprachenerwerb und Content and Language Integrated Learning in der Primarstufe. InS. Chilla & V. Karin (Eds.), Heterogenität und Diversität im Englischunterricht: Fachdidaktische Perspektiven (pp.235–261). Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blömeke, S., Risse, J., Müller, C., Eichler, D., & Schulz, W.
    (2006) Analyse der Qualität von Aufgaben aus didaktischer und fachlicher Sicht. Ein allgemeines Modell und seine exemplarische Umsetzung im Unterrichtsfach Mathematik. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 34(4), 330–357.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bonnet, A.
    (2016) Two for the price of one? Das Verhältnis von sachfachlicher und fremdsprachlicher Bildung beim Content and Language Integrated Learning. InB. Diehr, A. Preisfeld, & L. Schmelter (Eds.), Bilingualen Unterricht weiterentwickeln und erforschen (pp.37–56). Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2020) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing Strasbourg.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) CLIL. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009024549
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024549 [Google Scholar]
  10. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O.
    (2021) Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies Teaching for Deeper Learning. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108914505
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108914505 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2007) Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/lllt.20
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.20 [Google Scholar]
  12. Daywalt, D.
    (2016) The Day the Crayons Quit. Harper Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. D-EDK
    D-EDK (2014) Lehrplan 21. Geschäftsstelle Luzern.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. DESI-Konsortium
    DESI-Konsortium (2008) Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Beltz.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dudley, P. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203795538 [Google Scholar]
  16. Eisenmann, M.
    (2019) Teaching English: Differentiation and Individualisation. Ferdinand Schöningh. 10.36198/9783838551098
    https://doi.org/10.36198/9783838551098 [Google Scholar]
  17. European Union
    European Union (2008) Council Resolution of 21 November 2008 on a European strategy for multilingualism.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Frank Schmid, S.
    (2021) CLIL in der Fächerfusion Englisch und Bildnerisches Gestalten in heterogenen Primarschulklassen. Die Chancen und Herausforderungen von bilingualen Modulen als Ergänzung zum Englischunterricht. Gunter Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K.
    (2021) The suitability of dual language education for diverse students: An overview of research in Canada and the United States. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 9(2), 164–192. 10.1075/jicb.21001.gen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.21001.gen [Google Scholar]
  20. Heim, K.
    (2013) CLIL – Teaching the Art: Physical Education, Art, Music. InD. Elsner & J.-U. Kessler (Eds.), Bilingual Education in Primary School. Aspects of Immersion, CLIL and Bilingual Modules. (pp.61–72). Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kim-Eng Lee, C., & Lim-Ratnam, C.
    (2018) The growth of lesson study globally and in Singapore. Implications for quality and sustainability. InK. J. Kennedy & J. Chi-Kin Lee (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Schools and Schooling in Asia (pp.955–963). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Klippert, H.
    (2010) Heterogenität im Klassenzimmer. Beltz.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuckartz, U.
    (2018) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (4.). Beltz-Juvena.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kuckartz, U., Rädiker, S., Ebert, T., & Schehl, J.
    (2013) Statistik. Eine verständliche Einführung. (21. Auflage). Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 10.1007/978‑3‑531‑19890‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19890-3 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lamsfuss-Schenk, S.
    (2013) Lernmethoden, -techniken und -strategien im Bilingualen Unterricht. InW. Hallet & G. F. Königs (Eds.), Handbuch Bilingualer Unterricht (pp.258–264). Klett / Kallmeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
    (2012) The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lo, Y. Y.
    (2020) Professional Development of CLIL Teachers. Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑15‑2425‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2425-7 [Google Scholar]
  28. Luthiger, H., & Wildhirt, S.
    (2018) Aufgaben als Schlüssel zu einer kompetenzfördernden Lehr-Lern-Kultur. InH. Luthiger, M. Wilhelm, C. Wespi, & S. Wildhirt (Eds.), Kompetenzförderung mit Aufgabensets (pp.19–76). hep.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Maier, U., Bohl, T., Kleinknecht, M., & Metz, K.
    (2013) Allgemeindidaktische Kategorien für die Analyse von Aufgaben. InU. Maier, T. Bohl, M. Kleinknecht, & K. Metz (Eds.), Lern- und Leistungsaufgaben im Unterricht (pp.9–45). Klinkhardt.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Maillat, D.
    (2010) The pragmatics of L2 in CLIL. InC. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit, Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms (pp.39–58). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aals.7.03mai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.03mai [Google Scholar]
  31. Marsh, D., & Hill, R.
    (2009) Study on the Contribution of Multilingualism to Creativity (Final Report EACEA/2007/3995/2). European Commission.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Massler, U., & Ioannou-Georgiou, S.
    (2010) Best practice: How CLIL works. InU. Massler & P. Burmeister (Eds.), CLIL and Immersion: Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule (pp.61–73). Westermann.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Massler, U., & Steiert, C.
    (2010) Implementierung von CLIL-Modulen – Die Perspektive von Lehrenden, Kindern, Eltern. InU. Massler & P. Burmeister (Eds.), CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule (pp.11–29). Westermann.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Michell, M., & Sharpe, T.
    (2005) Instructional scaffolding in English as a second language classrooms. Prospect, 201, 31–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 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]
  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.
    (2019) CLIL and elitism: Myth or reality?The Language Learning Journal, 10.1080/09571736.2019.1645872. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334769136_CLIL_and_elitism_myth_or_reality
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1645872 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2021) CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes?InM. L. Pérez Cañado (Ed.), Content and Language Integrated Learning in Monolingual Settings (Vol.381, pp.31–51). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑68329‑0_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68329-0_3 [Google Scholar]
  39. Pfenninger, S. E., & Singleton, D.
    (2019) Making the most of an early start to L2 instruction. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1(2), 111–138. 10.1075/ltyl.00009.pfe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00009.pfe [Google Scholar]
  40. Piske, T.
    (2013) Bilingual Education: Chances and Challenges. InD. Elsner & J.-U. Kessler (Eds.), Bilingual Education in Primary School. Aspects of Immersion, CLIL and Bilingual Modules. (pp.28–39). Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Reusser, K.
    (2014) Kompetenzorientierung als Leitbegriff der Didaktik. Beiträge Zur Lehrerinnen- Und Lehrerbildung, 321, 325–339. 10.36950/bzl.32.2014.9595
    https://doi.org/10.36950/bzl.32.2014.9595 [Google Scholar]
  42. Rymarczyk, J.
    (2003) Kunst auf Englisch? Ein Plädoyer für die Erweiterung des bilingualen Sachfachkanons. Langenscheidt-Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Saito, E., Murase, M., Tsukui, A., & Yeo, J.
    (2015) Lesson Study for Learning Community: A guide to sustainable school reform. Routledge. public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1794276
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Schwab, G., Kessler, J.-U., & Hollm, J.
    (2012) ’Bili Hauptschule’ – Wissenschaftliche Begleitung des Projekts Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht an der Hermann-Butzer Schule Schwieberdingen. Abschlussbericht. https://www.ph-ludwigsburg.de/fileadmin/subsites/2b-engl-t-01/user_files/schwab/Material/1207_Abschlussbericht_BiliHS.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Spratt, M., Pulverness, A., & William, M.
    (2011) The TKT Course: Glossary. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Steinlen, A.
    (2021) English in Elementary Schools – Research and Implications on Minority and Majority Language Children’s Reading and Writing Skills in Regular and Bilingual Programs. Narr Francke Attempto.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Tedick, D. J., & Lyster, R.
    (2020) Scaffolding Language Development in Immersion and Dual Language Classrooms. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Thürmann, E.
    (2013) Scaffolding. InW. Hallet & G. F. Königs (Eds.), Handbuch Bilingualer Unterricht (pp.236–243). Klett / Kallmeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Urhahne, D.
    (2008) Sieben Arten der Lernmotivation. Ein Überblick über zentrale Forschungskonzepte. Psychologische Rundschau, 59(3), 150–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. VERBI Software
    VERBI Software (2018) MAXQDA 2018 Manual. https://www.maxqda.com/help-max18/welcome
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wirtz, M., & Caspar, F.
    (2002) Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität. Hogrefe.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Wolff, D.
    (2013) CLIL als europäisches Konzept. InW. Hallet & G. F. Königs (Eds.), Handbuch Bilingualer Unterricht (pp.18–26). Klett / Kallmeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Wood, K.
    (2015) Deepening learning through lesson and learning study. InK. Wood & S. Sithamparam (Eds.), Realising Learning. Teachers’ professional development through lesson and learning study. (pp.1–24). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Zydatiss, W.
    (2012) Linguistic Thresholds in the CLIL Classroom? The Threshold Hypothesis Revisited. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 17–28.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.21015.fra
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.21015.fra
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