Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 12:1 (2024) ► pp.75–100

SIOF

Towards a research-based pedagogical tool for language sensitive teaching in secondary CLIL and immersion settings

| University of Galway
| University of Galway
| University of Galway
The language learning outcomes of students in CLIL settings outstrip those of their peers who study the language in stand-alone classes. Research also indicates that in some cases the language development of CLIL students lacks grammatical accuracy, appropriate syntax, and lexical specificity. To combat this, CLIL teachers need to interweave the teaching of content and language. This can be a complex task as the vast majority of CLIL teachers do not have specific CLIL training. The issue is particularly complex at secondary level where teachers are content specialists. This article presents the research and theoretical underpinnings of SIOF, a pedagogical tool that focuses on scaffolding, input, output and feedback practices in the classroom. This tool has been developed to guide teachers in their efforts to place a more explicit focus on language. The authors discuss how SIOF can lead to what they term a Language Sensitive Learning Environment and the development of both language proficiency and subject knowledge.
Keywords: immersion, CLIL, language learning, language acquisition, language teaching
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical perspectives and foundations of SIOF
  • 3.SIOF
    • 3.1Scaffolding and student self-regulation
      • 3.1.1Scaffolding
      • 3.1.2Student self-regulation and classroom norms
    • 3.2Input
    • 3.3Output
    • 3.4Feedback
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Selected glossary
  • References
Published online: 24 August 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.22024.mac
References (76)
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.Google Scholar
Arnott, S., & Vignola, M.-J. (2018). The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in French immersion teacher education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6 (2), 321–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. B., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals – Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. McKay.Google Scholar
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching. Pearson.Google Scholar
Cammarata, L., & Cavanagh, M. (2018). In search of immersion teachers educators’ knowledge base. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6 (2), 189–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cammarata, L., & Ó Ceallaigh, T. J. (2018). Teacher education and professional development for immersion and content-based instrucion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6 (2), 153–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96 (2), 251–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. [URL]
Chittooran, M. M. (2018). Scaffolding. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 1451–1454). Sage.Google Scholar
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for enriched instruction. Heinle.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5 1, 161–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Companion volume with new discriptors. Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Day, E. M., & Shapson, S. (1996). Studies in immersion education. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Conclusion: The future of practice. In R. De Keyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 287–304). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Practice for second language learning: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. International Journal of English Studies, 10 (1), 155–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Echevarría, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2017). Making content comprehensible for secondary English learners: The SIOP model (3rd ed.). Pearson.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009a). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1 1, 3–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63 (2), 97–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Blanco, J. M. A. (2019). Analysing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22 (661–674). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frayer, D. A., Frederick, W. C., & Klausmeier, H. G. (1969). A schema for testing the level of concept mastery. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.Google Scholar
Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two case studies of content-based language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1 (1), 3–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. (2nd ed.). Heinemann.Google Scholar
Hall, K. (1993). Process writing in French immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 49 (2), 255–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, B. (1992). Patterns of second language development in French Immersion. Journal of French Language Studies, 2 (2), 159–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
He, P., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2018). Becoming a “language aware” content teacher. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6 (2), 162–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99 (1), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquistion. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
(1984). Immersion: why it works and what it has taught us. Language and Society, 12 1(Winter), 61–64.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21 (4), 431–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Authentik.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Collins, L., & Ballinger, S. (2009). Linking languages through a bilingual read-aloud project. Language Awareness, 18 (3–4), 366–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquistion, 19 (1), 37–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill Acquisition Theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In M. García Mayo, M. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrían (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71–92). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mac Gearailt, B., Mac Ruairc, G., & Murray, C. (2021). Actualising Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Irish-medium education; why, how and why now? Irish Educational Studies, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahan, K. R. (2022). The comprehending teacher: Scaffolding in Content and Language Integrated learning (CLIL). The Language Learning Journal, 50 (1), 74–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Vasylets, O. (2019). Language learning through writing: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp. 341–362). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsh, D., Maljers, A., & Hartiala, A.-K. (2001). Profiling European CLIL classrooms. University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Mehisto, P. (2008). CLIL counterweights: Recognising and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (1), 93–119.Google Scholar
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Met, M. (1999). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. The National Foreign Language Center. [URL]
NCCA. (2015). Effective questioning. NCCA.Google Scholar
Ní Dhíorbháin, A., & Ó Duibhir, P. (2017). An explicit-inductive approach to grammar in Irish-medium immersion schools. Language Awareness, 26 (1), 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ó Ceallaigh, T. J., Hourigan, M., & Leavy, A. (2018). Developing potentiality: Pre-service elementary teachers as learners of language immersion teaching. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ó Ceallaigh, T. J., & Ní Shéaghdha, A. (2017). I dtreo barr feabhais: Dea-chleachtais san oideachas lán-Ghaeilge [Towards excellence: Best practice in Irish-medium education]. Gaeloideachas.Google Scholar
Ó Ceallaigh, T. J., Ó Laoire, M., & Uí Chonghaile, M. (2019). Comtháthú an ábhair agus na teanga san iar-bhunscoil lán-Ghaeilge/Ghaeltachta: I dtreo éispéiris fobartha gairmiúla chun dea-chleachtais a nochtadh [The integration of content and language in post-primary all-Irish/Gaeltacht schools: Towards professional development experiences to uncover best practice]. An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelscolaíochta.Google Scholar
Ó Duibhir, P. (2018). Immersion education: Lessons from a minority language context. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford, R. L. (2016). Teaching and researching language learning strategies (2 ed.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polio, C., & Lee, J. (2017). Written language learning. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 299–317). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of conciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11 1, 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Routledge.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200–219). University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15 1, 165–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language Instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (2), 201–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30 1, 73–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 11, pp. 471–483). Routledge.Google Scholar
(2013). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 3218–3225). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tedick, D. J., & Fortune, T. W. (2013). Bilingual/immersion teacher education. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 438–443). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tedick, D. J., & Lyster, R. (2020). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. Routledge.Google Scholar
Troyan, F., Cammarata, L., & Martel, J. (2017). Integration PCK: Modeling the knowledges(s) underlying a world language teacher’s implemenataion of CBI. Foreign Language Annals, 50 (2), 458–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55 (4), 437–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 1, 321–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (2), 64–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar