Commentary
The role of language in scaffolding content & language integration in CLIL science classrooms
This commentary to the special issue “Teaching, Learning and Scaffolding in CLIL Science Classrooms” synthesizes
the contributions from the authors 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 issue, 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)
References
Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology Education, 20(2), 157–173. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (1st ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127–143. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values: Norwood, NJ: Ablex.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum: Theory and practice. Dordrecht: Springer.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Martin, J. R. (2007). Genre, ideology and intertextuality: A systemic functional perspective. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 2(2), 275. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tang, K. S. (2011). Reassembling curricular concepts: A multimodal approach to the study of curriculum and instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 91, 109–135. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tang, K. S. (2016). Constructing scientific explanations through premise–reasoning–outcome (PRO): An exploratory study to scaffold students in structuring written explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1415–1440. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wu, S. J., Mensah, F. M., & Tang, K. S. (2018). The content-language tension for English language learners in two secondary science classrooms. In K. S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education. Cham: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Tang, Kok‐Sing
2024.
Informing research on generative artificial intelligence from a language and literacy perspective: A meta‐synthesis of studies in science education.
Science Education 108:5
► pp. 1329 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Alejo-González, Rafael, Manuel Lucero, Mary Schleppegrell & Ana Sánchez
Tang, Kok-Sing & Natasha Anne Rappa
2021.
The Role of Metalanguage in an Explicit Literacy Instruction on Scientific Explanation.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 19:7
► pp. 1311 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 august 2024. 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.