1887
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

One of the most challenging issues in all types of content-based instruction is teachers’ perceived lack of pedagogical content knowledge necessary for effective content and language integration. This is linked to a lack of adequate provision for teacher preparation in these programs. This article draws on and adapts work from the wider educational field which updates and respecifies the construct of pedagogical content knowledge. This work is used to conceptualize and provide tools for the empirical analysis of the types of knowledge required for content and language integration in the everyday tasks of teaching in content-based instruction programs. Illustrative analyses from one teacher’s practices are presented. It is argued that the combination of a conceptual, heuristic framework and grounded, situated analysis can provide a foundation for a deeper understanding of content and language integration and tools for the organization of teacher education curricula in content-based instruction programs.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.4.2.01mor
2016-09-02
2018-11-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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. doi: 10.1177/1362168813505381
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813505381 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ball, D.L. , Thames, M.H. , & Phelps, G.C
    (2008) Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. doi: 10.1177/0022487108324554
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554 [Google Scholar]
  3. Berry, A. , Loughran, J. , & van Driel, J.H
    (2008) Revisiting the roots of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1271–1279. doi: 10.1080/09500690801998885
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801998885 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cammarata, L. , & Tedick, D.J
    (2012) Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers, The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–269. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2012.01330.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Cenoz, J
    (2015) Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different?Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. doi: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922 [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. doi: 10.1093/applin/amt011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011 [Google Scholar]
  7. Hodgen, J
    (2011) Knowing and identity: A situated theory of mathematics knowledge in teaching. In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp.27–42). Dordrecht: Springer/Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9766‑8_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9766-8_3 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2013.777385
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777385 [Google Scholar]
  9. Kelle, U
    (2005) “Emergence” vs. “forcing” of empirical data: A crucial problem of “grounded theory” reconsidered. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6. Retrieved fromwww.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/467
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Korthagen, F.A.J
    (2010) Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: Towards an integrative view of teacher behaviour and teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(1), 98–106. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Lemke, J.L
    (1990) Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lin, A.M.Y
    (2015) Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 74–89. doi: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000926
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000926 [Google Scholar]
  13. Loughran, J. , Mulhall, P. , & Berry, A
    (2004) In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370–391. doi: 10.1002/tea.20007
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20007 [Google Scholar]
  14. Love, K
    (2009) Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in secondary teacher education: Reflecting on oral language and learning across the disciplines. Language and Education, 23(6), 541–560. doi: 10.1080/09500780902822942
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780902822942 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lyster, R
    (2007) Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.18 [Google Scholar]
  16. Moore, P. , & Lorenzo, F
    (2007) Adapting authentic materials for CLIL classrooms: An empirical study. VIEWZ: Vienna English Working Papers, 16, 28–35. Retrieved fromhttps://anglistik.univie.ac.at/research/views/archive/
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mortimer, E.F. , & Scott, P.H
    (2003) Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Pérez Cañado, M.L
    (2014) Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-service teacher perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(3), 266–295. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2014.980778
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.980778 [Google Scholar]
  19. Richards, K
    (2006) ‘Being the teacher’: Identity and classroom conversation. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 51–77. doi: 10.1093/applin/ami041
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami041 [Google Scholar]
  20. Shulman, L
    (1987) Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22. doi: 10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
    https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 [Google Scholar]
  21. Speer, N.M
    (2005) Issues of methods and theory in the study of mathematics teachers’ professed and attributed beliefs. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(3), 361–391. doi: 10.1007/s10649‑005‑2745‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-2745-0 [Google Scholar]
  22. 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. doi: 10.1177/1362168811401153
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811401153 [Google Scholar]
  23. Tedick, D.J. , Christian, D. , & Fortune, T.W
    (2011) The future of immersion education: An invitation to ‘dwell in possibility’. In D.J. Tedick , D. Christian , & T.W. Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities (pp.1–10). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.4.2.01mor
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