Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 11:1 (2023) ► pp.4–28

Student-teacher interaction in CLIL and non-CLIL elementary education

A case study of verbal-pedagogical strategies and participation during read alouds in a Natural Science classroom

ORCID logo | Universidad de Extremadura
| Universidad de Extremadura
| University of Michigan
| Colegio Luis de Morales
This study analyzes interaction in a primary school science classroom. We compare the verbal scaffolding strategies used by a teacher during lessons from the same instructional unit taught in CLIL (English) and regular (Spanish) contexts. Results show that although there was no difference in the amount of information (‘content’) made available to students through the interactions, different verbal strategies were used (precision, justification and recall were more frequent in Spanish and exemplification in English) and that students were more active in engaging with science knowledge in the Spanish context. We discuss these findings in relation to the level of abstraction the teacher supported in interacting about science in the regular session, with implications for supporting children in learning both content and language in CLIL contexts.
Keywords: CLIL, primary science, classroom interaction, scaffolding strategies
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.CLIL research and interactional scaffolding
  • 3.Research questions
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Participants and research context
    • 4.2Codification and data analysis
      • 4.2.1Typical Classroom Activities, Episodes and Clauses
      • 3.2.2Categorization of the clauses
      • 4.2.3Verbal reworking and interactional strategies related to the information made public
      • 4.2.4Degree of student participation
      • 4.2.4Inter-rater reliability
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Amount of information made public
    • 5.2Types of verbal-pedagogic strategies used in the regular vs. CLIL class sessions
    • 5.3Degree of participation
    • 5.4Pedagogical-verbal strategies and level of participation
  • 6.Discussion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 10 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.21005.ale
References (49)
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.Google Scholar
Bustos, A., Montenegro, C., Tapia, A., & Calfual, K. (2017). Leer para aprender: Cómo interactúan los profesores con sus alumnos en la Educación Primaria [Reading to learn: How teachers interact with their students in primary education]. Ocnos: Revista de Estudios Sobre Lectura, 16 (1), 89–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36 1, 378–411. 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
Cummins, J. (1999). BICS and CALP: Clarifying the distinction (Report No. ED438551). ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (pp. 29–54). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Discourse analysis and CLIL. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 167–182). John Benjamins. 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
Downing, A., & Locke, P. (2006). English grammar: A university course. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2007). Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Ellison, M. (2018). CLIL in the primary school context. In Garton, S., & Copland, F. (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Teaching English to Young Learners. (pp. 247–268). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (5), 491–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gajo, L. (2007). Linguistic knowledge and subject knowledge: How does bilingualism contribute to subject development? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10 (5), 563–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García-Rodicio, H., Melero, M. A. & Izquierdo, M. B. (2018). A comparison of reading aloud, silent reading and follower reading. Which is best for comprehension? Una comparación de lectura en voz alta, lectura en silencio y lectura de seguimiento. ¿Cuál es mejor para la comprensión? Infancia y Aprendizaje, 41 (1), 138–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom: Students, teachers, and researchers. Continuum.Google Scholar
(2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning (2nd ed.). Heinemann.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Kayi-Aydar, H. (2013). Scaffolding language learning in an academic ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 67(3), 324–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leisen, J. (2010). Handbuch sprachförderung im fach: Sprachsensibler sachunterricht in der praxis. [Handbook on language support in subjects: Language-sensitive teaching in practice]. Ernst Klett Sprachen.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex.Google Scholar
Lin, A. M. (2016). Language across the curriculum & CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (Eds.). (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (Vol. 471). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2010). Writing and speaking in the history class: Data from CLIL and first language contexts. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp.125–144). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F. (2007) An Analytical Framework of Language Integration in L2 Content-based Courses: The European Dimension, Language and Education, 21:6, 502–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo, F., S. Casal, and P. Moore. 2010. ‘The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: key findings from the Andalusian sections evaluation project,’ Applied Linguistics, 418–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNeil, L. (2012). Using talk to scaffold referential questions for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28 (3), 396–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in bilingual and multilingual education. MacMillan.Google Scholar
Montali, J., & Lewandowski, L. (1996). Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer for average and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29 1, 271–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T. (2017). ‘What’s the moment thingy?’–On the emergence of subject-specific knowledge in CLIL classroom interaction. In Langman, J. & Hansen-Thomas, H. (eds.) Discourse analytic perspectives on STEM education (pp. 11–29). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Llinares, A. (2013). CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1 (1), 70–100. 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). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patterson, A., Roman, D., Friend, M., Osborne, J., & Donovan, B. (2018). Reading for meaning: The foundational knowledge every teacher of science should have. International Journal of Science Education, 40 (3), 291–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, S. M., Fenwick, K. D., Saunders, K. S., Ouellette, R., O’Quinn, C., & Harvey, S. (2011). Comprehension after oral and silent reading: Does grade level matter? Literacy Research and Instruction, 50 1, 183–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez, D., Lucero, M. & Montanero, M. (2013). Análisis del discurso síncrono y asíncrono en entornos virtuales de aprendizaje universitario. Revista de Investigación en Educación, 243–256.Google Scholar
Rojas Rojas, S. P., Meneses, A., & Sánchez Miguel, E. (2019). Teachers’ scaffolding science reading comprehension in low-income schools: how to improve achievement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 41 (13), 1827–1847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J. M. & Gallardo del Puerto, F. (2011). Content and foreign language integrated learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts. Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Isidro, X., & Lasagabaster, D. (2019). Code-switching in a CLIL multilingual setting: a longitudinal qualitative study. International Journal of Multilingualism, 16 (3), 336–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, E., García, J. R., Rosales, J., De Sixte, R., & Castellano, N. (2008). Elementos para analizar la interacción entre estudiantes y profesores: ¿qué ocurre cuando se consideran diferentes dimensiones y diferentes unidades de análisis? [Analyzing teacher-student’s interactions: What happens when different units of analysis and different focuses are considered?]. Revista de Educación, 346 1, 105–136.Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Content-based language teaching with functional grammar in the elementary school. Language Teaching, 49 (1), 116–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tang, K-S. (2019). The role of language in scaffolding content and language integration in CLIL science classrooms. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7 (2), 315–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Kampen, E., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2018). Content and language integrated learning in the Netherlands: teachers’ self-reported pedagogical practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21 (2), 222–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vázquez, V. P., & Ellison, M. (2018). Examining teacher roles and competences in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Linguarum Arena: Revista de Estudos em Didática de Línguas da Universidade do Porto, 4 1, 65–78.Google Scholar
Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A. C., & Resnick, L. B. (2006). Accountable talk in Reading comprehension instruction. Technical Report. National Center for Research and Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. University of California.Google Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17 (2), 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar