Characterizing CLIL teaching: new insights from a lower secondary classroom

Abstract

As a bilingual teaching method, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is growing in popularity in Europe and research has primarily focused on (language) learning outcomes.Few studies have identified what characterizes teaching in the CLIL classroom in terms of content and language integration. Studying how CLIL is practiced is vital to understanding how it works and how students can benefit from it. In this study, we filmed and observed CLIL lessons in science and mathematics in a 9 th grade, Norwegian CLIL class offering subjects in English. The present study uses The Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observation (PLATO) to analyze video-recordings of CLIL lessons in science and mathematics, emphasizing a within-CLIL focus, and compared this with the English language teaching in the same class, as a baseline. Our findings indicate content-driven and intellectually challenging CLIL teaching with clear instructional explanations and systematic language support. English was used as frequently in the CLIL teaching as in the English teaching. Content and language were clearly integrated in the observed CLIL lessons, underscoring that the CLIL teachers successfully conveyed their subject in the target language.

The comprehending teacher: scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL)

“…According to McNeil (2011), key scaffolding strategies include revoicing (repeating the student's answer in academic language), repetition (echoing a student's answer in class), and elaboration (prompting the student to justify or lengthen their answer) (398). Mahan, Brevik and Ødegaard (2018) provide evidence of these three scaffolding strategies in CLIL teaching, but they found more strategies in mathematics than in science. The science discourse included more patterns of Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE).…”

“…Gallagher and Colohan (2017) argue that L1 can be a powerful scaffolding strategy in CLIL contexts (in which students and teachers have a common L1 and cultural background). Mahan, Brevik and Ødegaard (2018) and Dalton-Puffer (2007) have found that CLIL teachers frequently use L1 as a resource for helping students comprehend, drawing connections between concepts in L1 and L2.…”

“…By contextualising texts with visual aids, sounds, and other ways of organising information, the teacher helped students understand content. Likewise, Mahan, Brevik and Ødegaard (2018) investigated supportive materials in CLIL teaching. They found that CLIL science teaching involved visual aids, graphic organisers, and film clips that help students understand abstract concepts.…”

“…Researchers have found that vocabulary teaching can be implicit in CLIL contexts because CLIL teachers are often not language teachers (Dalton-Puffer 2007; De Graaff et al 2007). However, one Norwegian study revealed a ninth-grade English L2 CLIL math and science class in which the CLIL teachers used several scaffolding strategies to support academic language development (Mahan, Brevik and Ødegaard 2018).…”

“…This is crucial to the language development of SLLs (Kayi-Aydar 2013). However, even though many SLL researchers note the potential benefits of scaffolding to SLLs, the research on CLIL is disparate and limited (Mahan, Brevik and Ødegaard 2018). There is a need for empirically grounded studies on naturally occurring CLIL teaching in order to map out how content teachers scaffold.…”