In:Teaching, Learning and Scaffolding in CLIL Science Classrooms
Edited by Yuen Yi Lo and Angel M.Y. Lin
[Benjamins Current Topics 115] 2021
► pp. 63–83
Teacher language awareness and scaffolded interaction in CLIL science classrooms
Published online: 13 May 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.115.04xu
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.115.04xu
Abstract
Teacher language awareness (TLA) constitutes the teacher’s self-reflective knowledge about the operation of
language systems in pedagogical practices. This study focuses on teachers’ understanding of learning of language and learning
through language in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) contexts, exploring how teachers proceduralise their knowledge
of language to facilitate science learning in Hong Kong. By analysing the reflective relationship between TLA and scaffolding
strategies of two teachers (students n = 31; 32) during a set of lessons in a secondary school, this paper
suggests that it is critical to re-orient the TLA focus from teachers to the act of learning and learners’ needs. This expanded
conceptual framework of TLA sheds light on how to transform teachers’ implicit knowledge of language into explicit awareness of
scaffolding in class. The TLA-filtered, scaffolded interactions can therefore promote the use of language not merely for
pedagogical purposes but also as a cognitive learning tool.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Teacher language awareness
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1Participants
- 3.2Procedures
- 3.3Analysis
- 4.Findings
- 4.1L2 science teachers’ awareness of language from the perspectives of learners and learning in CLIL contexts
- 4.1.1Teachers’ understanding of learning content subjects through language
- 4.1.2Teachers’ knowledge about learners’ English language proficiency and their cognitive knowledge of subject matter
- 4.1.3Teachers’ understanding of the impact of MOI policy on learner’s motivation and learning outcomes
- 4.2Conceptual scaffoldings
- 4.1L2 science teachers’ awareness of language from the perspectives of learners and learning in CLIL contexts
- 5.Discussion
- 6.Conclusion
Acknowledgements References
References (35)
Andrews, S., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2018). Language awareness and teacher development. In P. Garrett & J. M. Cots (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language awareness (pp. 57–74). London: Routledge.
Andrews, S., & Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2017). Teacher language awareness. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, & S. May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism. (pp. 219–231). New York, NY: Springer.
Chan, J. Y. H. (2016). The fine-tuning medium-of-instruction policy in Hong Kong: A case study of the changing school-based test papers in science subjects. Education Journal, 44(1), 159–193.
Choi, P. K. (2003). “The best students will learn English”: Ultra-utilitarianism and linguistic imperialism in education in post-1997 Hong Kong. Journal of Education Policy, 18(6), 673–694.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edge, J. (1988). Applying linguistics in English language teacher training for speakers of other languages. ELT Journal, 42(1), 9–13.
Education Bureau. (2009). Fine-tuning the medium of instruction for secondary schools. Hong Kong SAR: Education Bureau.
Evans, S. (2013). The long march to biliteracy and trilingualism: Language policy in Hong Kong education since the handover. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 302–324.
Fung, D., & Yip, V. (2014). The effects of the medium of instruction in certificate-level physics on achievement and motivation to learn. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1219–1245.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273.
Graham, K. M., Choi, Y., Davoodi, A., Razmeh, S., & Dixon, L. Q. (2018). Language and content outcomes of CLIL and EMI: A systematic review. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 11(1), 19–37.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116.
Hoare, P. (2003). Effective teaching of science through English in Hong Kong secondary schools. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127–143.
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. The Language Learning Journal, 42 (2), 123–136.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2016). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375.
Lindahl, K. M. (2013). Exploring an invisible medium: Teacher language awareness among preservice educators of English language learners (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
(2016). Teacher language awareness among pre-service K-12 educators of English language learners. In J. Crandall & M. Christison (Eds.), Teacher education and professional development in TESOL: Global perspectives (pp. 127–140). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lindahl, K. M., Baecher, L., & Tomas, Z. (2013). Teacher language awareness in content-based activity design. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language, 1(2), 198–225.
Lindahl, K. M., & Watkins, N. (2015). Creating a culture of language awareness in content-based contexts. TESOL Journal, 6(4), 777–789.
Liyanage, I., & Bartlett, B. J. (2010). From autopsy to biopsy: A metacognitive view of lesson planning and teacher trainees in ELT. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1362–1371.
Lo, Y. Y. (2019). Development of the beliefs and language awareness of content subject teachers in CLIL: Does professional development help? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(7), 818–832.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. London: John Benjamins Publishing.
Merino, J. A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). The effect of content and language integrated learning programmes’ intensity on English proficiency: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 18–30.
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.
Seah, L. H., Clarke, D., & Hart, C. (2015). Understanding middle school students’ difficulties in explaining density differences from a language perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 37(14), 2386–2409.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
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.
