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. 115–143

Co-developing science literacy and foreign language literacy through “Concept + Language Mapping”

| The University of Hong Kong
| Simon Fraser University
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.
Keywords: “Concept + Language Mapping” (CLM), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), English medium instruction (EMI), foreign language literacy, science literacy, thematic patterns
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
  • 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
Published online: 13 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.115.06he
References (36)
References
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. Modern Language Journal, 96(2):153–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Postscriptum: Research pathways in CLIL/Immersion instructional practices and teacher development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 384–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2014). Content and language integrated learning. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 117–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and education, 5(2), 93–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Language across the curriculum & CLIL in English as an Additional Language (EAL) Contexts: Theory and practice. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, A. M. Y., & Man, E. Y. F. (2009). Bilingual education: Southeast Asian perspectives. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2011). Learning from animated concept maps with concurrent audio narration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79, 209–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (2016). Conceptualizing integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2016). Introduction – CLIL implementation: From policy-makers to individual initiatives. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Ed.), Content and language integrated learning: Language policy and pedagogical practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wellington, J. J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar