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. 143–168

Scaffolding for cognitive and linguistic challenges in CLIL science assessments

 | The University of Hong Kong
 | The University of Alberta
 | The University of Hong Kong
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.
Keywords: bilingual education, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), instruction, assessment
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
Published online: 13 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.115.07lo
References (37)
References
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alderson, J. C. & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. 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
Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Earl, L. (2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Hönig, I. (2010). Assessment in CLIL: Theoretical and empirical research. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kong, S., Hoare, P., & Chi, Y. P. (2011). Immersion education in China: Teachers’ perspectives. Frontiers of Education in China, 6(1), 68–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, D. C. S. (2017). Multilingual Hong Kong: Languages, literacies and identities. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum: Theory and practice. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lo, Y. Y. (2014). Collaboration between L2 and content subject teachers in CBI: Contrasting beliefs and attitudes. RELC Journal, 45(2), 181–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Vers une approche intégrée en immersion. Montréal: Les Éditions CEC.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Pawan, F. (2008). Content-area teachers and scaffolded instruction for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1450–1462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17(2), 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar