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. 143–168
Scaffolding for cognitive and linguistic challenges in CLIL science assessments
Published online: 13 May 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.115.07lo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.115.07lo
Abstract
In Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes, students learn some non-language content subjects
through a second/foreign language (L2), and their content knowledge is often assessed in their L2. It follows that students are
likely to face challenges in both cognitive and linguistic aspects in assessments. Yet, there has been limited research exploring
whether and how CLIL teachers help their students cope with those challenges. This multi-case study seeks to address this issue by
investigating the instructional and assessment practices of two science teachers in Hong Kong secondary schools. The two teachers
presented an interesting contrast – one teacher incorporated both implicit and explicit language instruction in her lessons, so
her students were well prepared for the assessment tasks; the other teacher’s instructional and assessment practices were heavily
content-oriented, and it is not sure whether students mastered both content and L2. These findings illuminate CLIL pedagogy and
teacher education.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature review
- 2.1Alignment among objectives, instruction and assessments in CLIL
- 2.2CLIL objectives and teachers’ instruction
- 2.3CLIL objectives and assessment
- 2.4CLIL assessment and teachers’ instruction
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1Overall research design
- 3.2Research context and participants
- 3.3Data collection
- 3.3.1Lesson observations
- 3.3.2Collection of assessment tasks
- 3.3.3Semi-structured interviews
- 3.4Data analysis
- 4.Results
- 4.1Objectives
- 4.2Instruction
- 4.3Assessment practices
- Miss A
- Miss B
- 5.Discussion and conclusions
Acknowledgements Note References Appendix
References (37)
Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G. J., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 121(1), 75–93.
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.
Cammarata, L. (2016). Foreign language education and the development of inquiry-driven language programs: Key challenges and curricular planning strategies. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp. 123–143). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cammarata, L., & Haley, C. (2018). Integrated content, language, and literacy instruction in a Canadian French immersion context: A professional development journey. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 332–348.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Earl, L. (2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gablasova, D. (2014). Issues in the assessment of bilingually educated students: Expressing subject knowledge through L1 and L2. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 151–164.
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hönig, I. (2010). Assessment in CLIL: Theoretical and empirical research. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Kong, S., Hoare, P., & Chi, Y. P. (2011). Immersion education in China: Teachers’ perspectives. Frontiers of Education in China, 6(1), 68–91.
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. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 123–136.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Lin, A. M. Y., & Wu, Y. (2015). ‘May I speak Cantonese?’ – Co-constructing a scientific proof in an EFL junior secondary science classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 289–305.
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lo, Y. Y. (2014). Collaboration between L2 and content subject teachers in CBI: Contrasting beliefs and attitudes. RELC Journal, 45(2), 181–196.
Lo, Y. Y., & Fung, D. (2020). Assessment in CLIL: The interplay of cognitive and linguistic demands and their progression in secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(10), 1192–1210.
Lo, Y. Y., & Jeong, H. (2018). Impact of genre-based pedagogy on students’ academic literacy development in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Linguistics and Education, 47, 36–46.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Massler, U., Stotz, D., & Queisser, C. (2014). Assessment instruments for primary CLIL: The conceptualisation and evaluation of test tasks. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 137–150.
Morton, T., & Jakonen, T. (2016). Integration of language and content through languaging in CLIL classroom interaction: a conversation analysis perspective. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 171–188). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Type of programme or pedagogical model? In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Navés, T. (2011). How promising are the results of integrating content and language for EFL writing and overall EFL proficiency? In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning (pp. 103–128). Bern: Peter Lang.
Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Trevisan, M. S., & Brown, A. H. (2013). Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Pawan, F. (2008). Content-area teachers and scaffolded instruction for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1450–1462.
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2016): Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-service teacher perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(3), 266–295.
Reierstam, H. (2015). Assessing language or content? A comparative study of the assessment practices in three Swedish upper secondary CLIL schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Gothenburg Retrieved from <[URL]>
Shaw, S., & Imam, H. (2013). Assessment of international students through the medium of English: Ensuring validity and fairness in content-based examinations. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(4), 452–475.
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.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
