Cover not available
Part of
Teaching, Learning and Scaffolding in CLIL Science Classrooms
Edited by Yuen Yi Lo and Angel M.Y. Lin
[Benjamins Current Topics 115] 2021
► pp. 43–62

The positioning of Japanese in a secondary CLIL science classroom in Australia

Language use and the learning of content

 | Monash University
In Australia, content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is commonly implemented as a way to encourage innovation in language teaching. This paper explores how Japanese can also be used to innovate the teaching of content. Qualitative data are drawn from a Year 8 science Japanese CLIL classroom in a secondary school with an opt-in CLIL program. In the class, a monolingual (in English) science teacher was co-teaching with a Japanese language teacher. Findings from observations, after-class reflections, teacher and student interviews, a student survey and work samples revealed that students were highly engaged with the Japanese component of their science lessons. Kanji was further positioned as a way for students to deepen their understanding of scientific concepts. However, there also appeared to be a separation in the way both teachers and students spoke about Japanese language use and learning science. Implications of these findings are discussed in the paper.
Keywords: CLIL, Japanese, secondary education, science
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Science and content and language integration
    • 2.2Language-specific issues in using a target language to teach content
  • 3.The study
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1Using kanji to reinforce scientific concepts
    • 4.2Learning Japanese and learning science
    • 4.3Explanation and application
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.115.03tur
References (52)
References
Abe, Y. (2002). 漢字という障害 [An Obstacle Named Kanji]. Shakai gengogaku, 2, 37–55.Google Scholar
(2015). ことばのバリアフリー: 情報保障とコミュニケーションの 障害学 [Barrier-free Language: Disability studies of information assurance and communication]. Tokyo: Seikatsu shoin.Google Scholar
Andō, M. (1942). 日本語のむづかしさ [The difficulty of Japanese language]. Nihongo, 2(3), 4–11.Google Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bravo, M. A. (2017). Cultivating teacher knowledge of the role of language in science: A model of elementary grade pre-service teacher preparation. In A. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition (pp. 25–40). Springer: Switzerland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cross, R., & Gearon, M. (2013). Research and evaluation of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach to teaching and learning languages in Victorian schools. Melbourne Australia: Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualizing content and language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). ‘You can stand under my umbrella‘: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. In E. Dafouz & T. Nikula (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 29–54). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Jong, E. (2002). Effective bilingual education: From theory to academic achievement in a two-way bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 65–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Kretser, A., & Spence-Brown, R. (2010). The current state of Japanese language education in Australian schools. Melbourne: Education Services Australia.Google Scholar
Department of Education and Training (DET). (2017). Languages provision in Victorian Government schools, 2016. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Eurydice. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Eurydice. Retrieved from [URL]
Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2017). Analysing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fielding, R., & Harbon, L. (2015). Implementing a content and language integrated learning program in New South Wales primary schools: Teachers’ perceptions of the challenges and opportunities. Babel, 49(2), 16+Google Scholar
Fortune, T. W., & Tedick, D. J. (2008). One-way, two-way and indigenous immersion: A call for cross-fertilization. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 3–21). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual children. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(2004). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Mattheissen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition), London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hovhannisyan, A. (2018). Japanese language education in the greater East Asia co-prosperity sphere and the Kokuji Mondai (National Script Problem). In K. Hashimoto (Ed.), Japanese Language and Soft Power in Asia (pp. 65–81). Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Jäppinen, A. (2005). Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 147–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, W., & Lee, J. S. (2017). Math instruction is not universal: Language specific pedagogical knowledge in Korean/English two-way immersion programs. Bilingual Research Journal. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Genesee, F. (2010). Alternative educational programs for English language learners. In California Department of Education (Eds.), Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches (pp. 323–382). Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 321–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin-Beltrán, M. (2010). The two-way language bridge: Co-constructing bilingual language learning opportunities. Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 254–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – Mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T. (2015). Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 54, 14–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F. (2016). More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and bilingual education. In T. Nikula, C. Dalton-Puffer, A. Llinares, & F. Lorenzo (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 1–25). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R. (2002). Language and literacy in bilingual children. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth? Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Vidal, C., & Roquet, H. (2015). The linguistic impact of a CLIL science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rasulo, M., de Meo, A., & de Santo, M. (2017). Processing science through content and language integrated learning (CLIL): A teacher’s practicum. In A. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition (pp. 305–322). Springer: Switzerland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, L. C. (2017). A language-based approach to content instruction (LACI) in science for English language learners. In A. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition (pp. 41–56). Springer: Switzerland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva, C., Weinburgh, M., Malloy, R., Horak Smith, K., & Nettles Marshall, J. (2012). Toward integration: An instructional model of science and academic language. Childhood Education, March/April, 91–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smala, S. (2016). CLIL in Queensland: The evolution of ‘immersion’. Babel, 50(2–3), 20.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(2000). French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, K. (2011). 漢字が日本語をほろぼす [Kanji are destroying Japanese language]. Tokyo: Kadokawa SSC Shinsho.Google Scholar
Tedick, D. J., & Young, A. I. (2014). Fifth grade two-way immersion students’ responses to form-focused instruction. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 784–807. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement: Final report. Santa Cruz, CA/Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.Google Scholar
Turner, M. (2013). Content-based Japanese language teaching in Australian schools: Is CLIL a good fit? Japanese Studies, 33(3), 315–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The significance of affordances on teachers’ choices: Embedding Japanese across the curriculum in Australian secondary schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(3), 276–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, M. (1999). History and geography through French: CLIL in a UK secondary school. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes (pp. 96–105). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.Google Scholar
Weinburgh, M. H., & Silva, C. (2010). Science content knowledge and language acquisition: Replacing, reloading, repositioning, revealing and retiring academic words. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Sacramento, CA.
Wode, H. (1999). Language learning in European immersion classes. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes (pp. 16–25). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.Google Scholar