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. 169–181
The role of language in scaffolding content & language integration in CLIL science classrooms
Published online: 13 May 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.115.08tan
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.115.08tan
Abstract
This chapter synthesizes
the contributions from the authors in this edited volume by addressing two overarching questions. First, what is the role of language in mediating
science teaching and learning in a CLIL science classroom? Second, to what extent can content and language be integrated or
separated in CLIL instruction and assessment? In addressing the first question, I distil three major perspectives of how the
authors conceive the role of language as a scaffolding tool. These roles are: (a) providing the discursive means and structure for
classroom interaction to occur, (b) enabling students’ construction of knowledge through cognitive and/or linguistic processes,
and (c) providing the semantic relationships for science meaning-making. These three perspectives roughly correspond to the
discursive, cognitive-linguistic, and semiotic roles of language respectively. In addition, two other roles – epistemic and
affective, though not emphasized in this volume, are also discussed. In addressing the second question, I raise a dilemma
concerning the integration of content and language. While there are clear political and theoretical arguments calling for an
inseparable integration, there is also a common practice to separate content and language as distinct entities for various
pedagogical and analytical purposes. In revolving this conundrum, I suggest a way forward is to consider the differences in the
various roles of language (discursive/cognitive/linguistic vs. semiotic/epistemic/affective) or the levels of language involved
(lexicogrammar vs. text/genre).
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Language in discursive, cognitive, linguistic, semiotic, epistemic & affective roles
- 2.1Discursive role to scaffold classroom interaction
- 2.2Cognitive-Linguistic role to scaffold construction of knowledge
- 2.3Semiotic role to scaffold science meaning-making
- 2.4Epistemic and affective roles
- 3.Content & language as integrated or separate entities?
- 4.Closing remarks
References
References (16)
Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology Education, 20(2), 157–173.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (1st ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2013). Classroom discussions in Math: A teacher’s guide for using talk moves to support the common core and more, Grades K-6: A Multimedia Professional Learning Resource (third edition). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127–143.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
Martin, J. R. (2007). Genre, ideology and intertextuality: A systemic functional perspective. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 2(2), 275.
Shanahan, M. C. (2012). Reading for evidence through hybrid adapted primary literature. In S. P. Norris (Ed.), Reading for evidence and interpreting visualizations in mathematics and science education (pp. 41–63). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Tang, K. S. (2011). Reassembling curricular concepts: A multimodal approach to the study of curriculum and instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 109–135.
