Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education: Online-First Articles

A review of a decade of scaffolding practices for learning in CLIL science classrooms

ORCID logo | Universitat Politècnica de València
ORCID logo | Universitat Politècnica de València
ORCID logo | Universitat Politècnica de València
This systematic review examines scaffolding practices in science instruction within Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) environments, where English as a foreign language is the medium of instruction (L2). Adopting PRISMA guidelines, 1,052 records were identified, of which 19 were eligible for inclusion. Our analysis shows the essentiality of rediscursification (modifying instructional discourse) and transsemiotization (combining semiotic resources to enhance the message). It also shows variability in the discourse around translanguaging (the fluid use of languages) across contexts, and that preferences for scaffolding practices are shaped by cultural dispositions. The majority of the studies were non-experimental and focused on vocabulary, with only a minority applying heuristics designed for integrating content and language. We raise the question whether some multimodal resources and students’ first languages truly promote science literacy in CLIL. Finally, we provide research-based implications for science CLIL teachers and trainers to support deeper learning in the L2 science classroom.
Keywords: content and language integrated learning (CLIL), science, scaffolding, rediscursification, translanguaging, transsemiotizing, cultural dimensions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Scaffolding in CLIL and science
    • 2.1Leveraging L2 discourse
    • 2.2Leveraging multisemiotic resources
    • 2.3Factoring ‘culture’ into scaffolding practices
  • 3.The objectives of the study
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Databases and search strategy
    • 4.2Analysis of the studies
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1The range and characteristics of the target studies
    • 5.2Observed forms of scaffolding
      • 5.2.1Rediscursification
        • 5.2.1.1Employing questions and varying semantic density to facilitate comprehension
        • 5.2.1.2Employing questions to encourage precision and extended production
      • 5.2.2Translanguaging
      • 5.2.3Transsemiotizing
        • 5.2.3.1Integrating paralinguistic resources and verbal support for meaning making
        • 5.2.3.2Integrating and sequencing multimodal resources with verbal support for knowledge construction
    • 5.3Contexts and cultures affecting scaffolding
      • 5.3.1Ethnic culture
      • 5.3.2Academic culture
      • 5.3.3Local culture
      • 5.3.4Disciplinary culture
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 3 September 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.23010.nas
References (65)
References
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into Practice. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper (Ed.), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology: Vol. 2. Research designs (pp. 57–91). American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., Zhang, P. & Huang, L. (2022). Translanguaging/trans-semiotizing in teacher–learner interactions on social media: Making learner agency visible and achievable. System, 104 1, 102686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper, G. (1998). Research into cognitive load theory and instructional design at UNSW. University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Council Resolution of 31 March 1995 on improving and diversifying language learning and teaching within the education systems of the European Union. (1995). Official Journal, C 2071, 1–5. CELEX: [URL] [legislation]
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters.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
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., & Llinares, A. (2022). CLIL in the 21st Century: Retrospective and prospective challenges and opportunities. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30 1,169–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duibhir, P. Ó. & Cummins, J. (2012). Towards an integrated language curriculum in early childhood and primary education (3–12 years). Research report N. 16. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, Dublin.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition, 28 (4), 575–600. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escobar-Urmeneta, C. & Evnitskaya, N. (2014). ‘Do you know Actimel?’ The adaptive nature of dialogic teacher-led discussions in the CLIL science classroom: A case study. The Language Learning Journal, 42 (2), 165–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evnitskaya, N. & Morton, T. (2011). Knowledge construction, meaning-making and interaction in CLIL science classroom communities of practice, Language and Education, 25 (2), 109–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feiman-Nemser, S. & R. E. Floden. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In M. C. Whittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 505–26). Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fernández-Barrera, A. (2019). Doing CLIL in the science classroom: A critical sociolinguistic ethnography in La Mancha secondary schools. Foro de Educación, 17 (27), 37–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J. & Miller, L. (1995). On the notion of culture in L2 lectures. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (2), 345–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. Mohanty, & M. Panda (Eds.), Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 140–158). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez Ramos, J. L., Palazón Fernández, J. L., Lirio Castro, J. & Gómez-Barreto, M. I. (2022). CLIL: graphic organisers and concept maps for noun identification within bilingual primary education natural science subject textbooks, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25 (6), 2006–2017. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
He, P. & Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Co-developing science literacy and foreign language literacy through “Concept + Language Mapping”, Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 7 (2), 261–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ho, C., Wong, J. K. Y., & Rappa, N. A. (2019). Supporting students’ content learning in Biology through teachers’ use of classroom talk drawing on concept sketches, Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 7 (2), 233–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hu, J., & Gao, X. (2021). Understanding subject teachers’ language-related pedagogical practices in content and language integrated learning classrooms. Language Awareness, 30 (1), 42–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kääntä, L., Kasper, G. & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2018). Explaining Hooke’s Law: Definitional Practices in a CLIL Physics Classroom. Applied Linguistics 39 (5), 694–717. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, Y., Hwang, H., Nam, K. & Choi, Y. (2010). Comparison of Teacher Talk of Korean and Native English-speaking Teachers: On the Efficiency of Delivering Content Knowledge in EFL Contexts, The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 7 (2), 1–28.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes, International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4–17.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. L. & Lin, A. (2022). Translanguaging and Flows: Towards an alternative conceptual model, Educational Linguistics 1(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, A. M. Y. (2015). Conceptualizing the Potential Role of L1 in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28 (1): 74–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010, June). How to teach academic science language. Keynote speech given at the Symposium on Language & Literacy in Science Learning, organized by Hong Kong Education Bureau (Curriculum Development Institute – Science Education Section), Hong Kong.
Llinares, A. & Evnitskaya, N. (2021). Classroom Interaction in CLIL Programs: Offering Opportunities or Fostering Inequalities? TESOL Quarterly 55 (2), 366–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T. & Whittaker, R. (2012). The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lo, Y. Y., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Special issue: Teaching, Learning and Scaffolding in CLIL Science Classrooms, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7 (2). 151–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lo, Y. Y., Lin, A. M. Y. & Lui, Y. (2020). Exploring content and language co-construction in CLIL with semantic waves, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(3), 289–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lo, Y. Y., Lui, W-m., & Wong, M. (2019). Scaffolding for cognitive and linguistic challenges in CLIL science assessments. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7 (2), 289–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo, F. (2008). Instructional discourse in bilingual settings. An empirical study of linguistic adjustments in content and language integrated learning. The Language Learning Journal 36 (1), 21–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahan, K. R. (2020). The comprehending teacher: scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL), The Language Learning Journal, 74–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahan, K. R., Brevik, L. M. & Ødegaard, M. (2018). Characterizing CLIL teaching: new insights from a lower secondary classroom, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24 (1), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
May, S. (2014). Introducing the “multilingual turn”. In S. May (Ed.) The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 1–6). Routledge.Google Scholar
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning: Mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28 (1), 41–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G.; PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6 (7): e1000097. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, P., & Nikula, T. (2016). Translanguaging in CLIL classrooms. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (eds). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 211–234). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morton, T. (2015). Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: a conversation analysis perspective. The Language Learning Journal 43 (3), 256–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morton, T. & Nashaat-Sobhy, N. (2023). Exploring Bases of Achievement in Content and Language Integrated Assessment in a Bilingual Education Program. TESOL Quarterly. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T. (2015). Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 54 1, 14–27. 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, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, U. Smit (Eds.) Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6 (3), 281–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Piacentini, V. (2021). CLIL and Science education. A review for a Language focus in Science teaching, Ricerche di Pedagogia e Didattica. Journal of Theories and Research in Education. 16 (3), 113–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinho Feller, N. (2021). Translanguaging and scaffolding as pedagogical strategies in a primary bilingual classroom, Classroom Discourse, 13 (3). 312–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polias, J. (2016). Apprenticing Students into Science: Doing, Talking, Writing and Drawing Scientifically. Lexis EducationGoogle Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Coyle, Y. & García, V. (2022). The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in a CLIL science class, Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12 (4), 597–622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suwalska, A. (2018). Culture of teaching in Finnish schools in context of educational change. Polish Journal of Educational Studies, 71(1), 112–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of immersion and content-based Language education, 1 (1), 101–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagnin, L. & Ní Ríordáin, M. (2021). Building science through questions in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms, International Journal of STEM Education 8 1. Article 34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsang, M. K.-Y. (2020). Building in language support in a Hong Kong CLIL chemistry classroom. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 8 (2), 149–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tu, W. (Ed.). (1996). Confucian traditions in East Asian modernity: Moral education and economic culture in Japan and the four mini-dragons. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, M. (2022). Fifth graders’ use of gesture and models when translanguaging during a content and language integrated science class in Hong Kong, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25 (4), 1304–1323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, M., & Tang, K. S. (2020). The implications of the non-linguistic modes of meaning for language learners in science: a review. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1041–1067. DOI logoGoogle 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
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wu, Y. & Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Translanguaging and trans-semiotising in a CLIL biology class in Hong Kong: whole-body sense-making in the flow of knowledge co-making, Classroom Discourse, 10:3–4, 252–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Zayas-Martínez, Francisco, José Luis Estrada-Chichón & Natalia Segura-Caballero
2024. Pre-Service CLIL Teachers’ Conceptions on Bilingual Education: Impact of Initial Training on the Development of Their Teaching Skills. Education Sciences 14:12 ► pp. 1331 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 january 2025. 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.