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. 115–143
Co-developing science literacy and foreign language literacy through “Concept + Language Mapping”
Published online: 13 May 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.115.06he
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.115.06he
Abstract
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 outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature review
- 2.1Meaningful learning and concept mapping
- 2.2Thematic patterns
- 2.3Thematic-pattern-based “concept + language mapping”
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1Research design
- 3.2Data collection and analysis
- 4.Results and analysis
- 4.1The CLM approach facilitated content and language development in the EMI biology classroom
- 4.1.1Quantitative results
- 4.1.2Qualitative results
- 4.2Integrating content and language learning with thematic-pattern-based designed and spontaneous scaffoldings in shifting communicative approaches
- 4.2.1Multimodal animated sequential “concept + language mapping” with thematic-pattern-based designed and spontaneous scaffoldings
- 4.2.2Integrating content and language by combining thematic patterns and genre structures
- 4.1The CLM approach facilitated content and language development in the EMI biology classroom
- 5.Discussion
- 5.1Integrating content and language in CLIL lessons
- 5.2Drawing on perspectives of subject education researchers
- 5.3Teacher education about “thematic-pattern-based” CLM pedagogy
- 6.Conclusion
Acknowledgements Notes References Appendix
References (36)
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
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.
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.
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. Modern Language Journal, 96(2):153–289.
Cenoz, J. (2016). Discussion: Towards an education perspective in CLIL language policy and pedagogical practice. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Ed.), Content and language integrated learning: Language policy and pedagogical practice. London: Routledge.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262.
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.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
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.
(2018). Postscriptum: Research pathways in CLIL/Immersion instructional practices and teacher development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 384–387.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2014). Content and language integrated learning. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 117–122.
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and education, 5(2), 93–116.
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.
(1998). Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions. Conference on Science Education in Barcelona.
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.
(2016). Language across the curriculum & CLIL in English as an Additional Language (EAL) Contexts: Theory and practice. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lin, A. M. Y., & Man, E. Y. F. (2009). Bilingual education: Southeast Asian perspectives. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lorenzo, F. (2016). Genre-based curricula: multilingual academic literacy in content and language integrated learning. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Ed.), Content and language integrated learning: Language policy and pedagogical practice. London: Routledge.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
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.
Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and Language Learning (CLIL): Type of programme or pedagogical model? In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 105–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2011). Learning from animated concept maps with concurrent audio narration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79, 209–230.
Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (2016). Conceptualizing integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
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.
Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In Lederman, N. G. & Abell, S. K. (Ed.), Handbook of research on science education (Volume II). New York, NY: Routledge.
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.
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox.