Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 12:1 (2024) ► pp.49–74

The communicative CLIL classroom

Insights into heterogenous learners’ spoken communication in English about art in Swiss primary schools

ORCID logo | University of Teacher Education Lucerne

The article addresses how heterogenous primary school students in Switzerland use learning opportunities to develop their English-speaking competences offered in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Based on the lesson study approach, two task-based CLIL modules combining the subjects English and art were implemented in different primary classes with a focus on three case pupils in each class who represent high-attaining, average and low-attaining learners of English. Their spoken communication was analysed with an adapted version of the Communication Orientation of Language Teaching (COLT) observation scheme (Allen et al., 1983) and according to the language triptych (Coyle et al., 2010). Surveys were also conducted to investigate learners’ and teachers’ perception of the learning opportunities. The results indicate that the high-attaining and average students used the provided opportunities almost equally for developing their oral English competences. Although the low-attaining learners used the CLIL tasks in a significantly different way, they also achieved the objectives for speaking in English about art.

Keywords: CLIL, heterogenous classes, differentiation, language triptych, COLT observation scheme, lesson study
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1The communicative CLIL classroom
    • 2.2Varied tasks for the CLIL classroom
  • 3.Research context and methods
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Research design: Lesson study
    • 3.3The tasks in CLIL module II
    • 3.4Data collection and coding
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Findings from lesson analysis
    • 4.2Survey findings
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.21015.fra
References
Abendroth-Timmer, D.
(2007) Zur sprachenpolitischen Bedeutung und motivationalen Wirkung des Einsatzes von bilingualen Modulen in sprachlich heterogenen Lerngruppen. In D. Caspari, W. Hallet, A. Wegner, & W. Zydatiss (Eds.), Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule – Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung (pp. 177–191). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Allen, P., Fröhlich, M., & Spada, N.
(1983) The Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching: An Observation Scheme. TESOL 83. The Question of Control. Selected Papers from the Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 17 1, 231–252.Google Scholar
Bechler, S.
(2014) Bilinguale Module in der Grundschule – Integriertes Inhalts- und Sprachlernen im Fächerverbund Mensch, Natur und Kultur. Peter Lang. [URL]. DOI logo
Bellet, S.
(2017) Mehrsprachenerwerb und Content and Language Integrated Learning in der Primarstufe. In S. Chilla & V. Karin (Eds.), Heterogenität und Diversität im Englischunterricht: Fachdidaktische Perspektiven (pp. 235–261). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Blömeke, S., Risse, J., Müller, C., Eichler, D., & Schulz, W.
(2006) Analyse der Qualität von Aufgaben aus didaktischer und fachlicher Sicht. Ein allgemeines Modell und seine exemplarische Umsetzung im Unterrichtsfach Mathematik. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 34 (4), 330–357.Google Scholar
Bonnet, A.
(2016) Two for the price of one? Das Verhältnis von sachfachlicher und fremdsprachlicher Bildung beim Content and Language Integrated Learning. In B. Diehr, A. Preisfeld, & L. Schmelter (Eds.), Bilingualen Unterricht weiterentwickeln und erforschen (pp. 37–56). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Council of Europe
(2020) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing Strasbourg.Google 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. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., & Meyer, O.
(2021) Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies Teaching for Deeper Learning. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2007) Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daywalt, D.
(2016) The Day the Crayons Quit. Harper Collins.Google Scholar
D-EDK
(2014) Lehrplan 21. Geschäftsstelle Luzern.Google Scholar
DESI-Konsortium
(2008) Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Beltz.Google Scholar
Dudley, P.
(2014) Lesson Study: A handbook. [URL]. DOI logo
Eisenmann, M.
(2019) Teaching English: Differentiation and Individualisation. Ferdinand Schöningh. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
European Union
(2008) Council Resolution of 21 November 2008 on a European strategy for multilingualism.Google Scholar
Frank Schmid, S.
(2021) CLIL in der Fächerfusion Englisch und Bildnerisches Gestalten in heterogenen Primarschulklassen. Die Chancen und Herausforderungen von bilingualen Modulen als Ergänzung zum Englischunterricht. Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K.
(2021) The suitability of dual language education for diverse students: An overview of research in Canada and the United States. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 9 (2), 164–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, K.
(2013) CLIL – Teaching the Art: Physical Education, Art, Music. In D. Elsner & J.-U. Kessler (Eds.), Bilingual Education in Primary School. Aspects of Immersion, CLIL and Bilingual Modules. (pp. 61–72). Narr.Google Scholar
Kim-Eng Lee, C., & Lim-Ratnam, C.
(2018) The growth of lesson study globally and in Singapore. Implications for quality and sustainability. In K. J. Kennedy & J. Chi-Kin Lee (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Schools and Schooling in Asia (pp. 955–963). Routledge.Google Scholar
Klippert, H.
(2010) Heterogenität im Klassenzimmer. Beltz.Google Scholar
Kuckartz, U.
(2018) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (4.). Beltz-Juvena.Google Scholar
Kuckartz, U., Rädiker, S., Ebert, T., & Schehl, J.
(2013) Statistik. Eine verständliche Einführung. (21. Auflage). Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamsfuss-Schenk, S.
(2013) Lernmethoden, -techniken und -strategien im Bilingualen Unterricht. In W. Hallet & G. F. Königs (Eds.), Handbuch Bilingualer Unterricht (pp. 258–264). Klett / Kallmeyer.Google Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
(2012) The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lo, Y. Y.
(2020) Professional Development of CLIL Teachers. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luthiger, H., & Wildhirt, S.
(2018) Aufgaben als Schlüssel zu einer kompetenzfördernden Lehr-Lern-Kultur. In H. Luthiger, M. Wilhelm, C. Wespi, & S. Wildhirt (Eds.), Kompetenzförderung mit Aufgabensets (pp. 19–76). hep.Google Scholar
Maier, U., Bohl, T., Kleinknecht, M., & Metz, K.
(2013) Allgemeindidaktische Kategorien für die Analyse von Aufgaben. In U. Maier, T. Bohl, M. Kleinknecht, & K. Metz (Eds.), Lern- und Leistungsaufgaben im Unterricht (pp. 9–45). Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
Maillat, D.
(2010) The pragmatics of L2 in CLIL. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit, Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms (pp. 39–58). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsh, D., & Hill, R.
(2009) Study on the Contribution of Multilingualism to Creativity (Final Report EACEA/2007/3995/2). European Commission.Google Scholar
Massler, U., & Ioannou-Georgiou, S.
(2010) Best practice: How CLIL works. In U. Massler & P. Burmeister (Eds.), CLIL and Immersion: Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule (pp. 61–73). Westermann.Google Scholar
Massler, U., & Steiert, C.
(2010) Implementierung von CLIL-Modulen – Die Perspektive von Lehrenden, Kindern, Eltern. In U. Massler & P. Burmeister (Eds.), CLIL und Immersion. Fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht in der Grundschule (pp. 11–29). Westermann.Google Scholar
Michell, M., & Sharpe, T.
(2005) Instructional scaffolding in English as a second language classrooms. Prospect, 20 1, 31–58.Google 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
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.
(2019) CLIL and elitism: Myth or reality? The Language Learning Journal, DOI logo. [URL]
(2021) CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes? In M. L. Pérez Cañado (Ed.), Content and Language Integrated Learning in Monolingual Settings (Vol. 381, pp. 31–51). Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfenninger, S. E., & Singleton, D.
(2019) Making the most of an early start to L2 instruction. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1 (2), 111–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piske, T.
(2013) Bilingual Education: Chances and Challenges. In D. Elsner & J.-U. Kessler (Eds.), Bilingual Education in Primary School. Aspects of Immersion, CLIL and Bilingual Modules. (pp. 28–39). Narr.Google Scholar
Reusser, K.
(2014) Kompetenzorientierung als Leitbegriff der Didaktik. Beiträge Zur Lehrerinnen- Und Lehrerbildung, 32 1, 325–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rymarczyk, J.
(2003) Kunst auf Englisch? Ein Plädoyer für die Erweiterung des bilingualen Sachfachkanons. Langenscheidt-Longman.Google Scholar
Saito, E., Murase, M., Tsukui, A., & Yeo, J.
(2015) Lesson Study for Learning Community: A guide to sustainable school reform. Routledge. [URL]
Schwab, G., Kessler, J.-U., & Hollm, J.
(2012) ’Bili Hauptschule’ – Wissenschaftliche Begleitung des Projekts Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht an der Hermann-Butzer Schule Schwieberdingen. Abschlussbericht. [URL]
Spratt, M., Pulverness, A., & William, M.
(2011) The TKT Course: Glossary. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steinlen, A.
(2021) English in Elementary Schools – Research and Implications on Minority and Majority Language Children’s Reading and Writing Skills in Regular and Bilingual Programs. Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
Tedick, D. J., & Lyster, R.
(2020) Scaffolding Language Development in Immersion and Dual Language Classrooms. Routledge.Google Scholar
Thürmann, E.
(2013) Scaffolding. In W. Hallet & G. F. Königs (Eds.), Handbuch Bilingualer Unterricht (pp. 236–243). Klett / Kallmeyer.Google Scholar
Urhahne, D.
(2008) Sieben Arten der Lernmotivation. Ein Überblick über zentrale Forschungskonzepte. Psychologische Rundschau, 59 (3), 150–166.Google Scholar
VERBI Software
(2018) MAXQDA 2018 Manual. [URL]
Wirtz, M., & Caspar, F.
(2002) Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität. Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Wolff, D.
(2013) CLIL als europäisches Konzept. In W. Hallet & G. F. Königs (Eds.), Handbuch Bilingualer Unterricht (pp. 18–26). Klett / Kallmeyer.Google Scholar
Wood, K.
(2015) Deepening learning through lesson and learning study. In K. Wood & S. Sithamparam (Eds.), Realising Learning. Teachers’ professional development through lesson and learning study. (pp. 1–24). Routledge.Google Scholar
Zydatiss, W.
(2012) Linguistic Thresholds in the CLIL Classroom? The Threshold Hypothesis Revisited. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (4), 17–28.Google Scholar