Translanguaging practices in CLIL and non-CLIL biology lessons in Switzerland

Abstract

EN Studies on translanguaging in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes have predominately focused on the use of the first language (L1) as a potential resource in CLIL lessons. This article argues that translanguaging practices that involve more than students' L1 are valuable, even necessary, pedagogies in both CLIL and non-CLIL biology lessons. The qualitative analysis of transcripts from 31 CLIL (English) and non-CLIL (German) biology lessons in Switzerland reveals that translanguaging involving the source languages of the technical vocabulary represents a particularly useful tool for negotiating meaning. Only one of the two instructors who participated in this study engaged in this kind of translanguaging when discussing the semantic content of technical vocabulary. Interestingly, this instructor had more extreme attitudes concerning classroom linguistic behaviour, upholding the need for monolingual (i.e., English-only) practices in his classroom. This observation indicates that teachers' stances towards translanguaging do not necessarily coincide with their practices.

Factors Pertinent to First Language Use in Foreign Language Classroom: A Case of Content and Language Integrated Learning

“…Having recognised the indispensability of L1 application, Papaja and Wysocka-Narewska (2020) mainly worked on the ways L1 should be used and deduced that secondary school teachers in Poland encouraged L1 instruction in CLIL for specific purposes, such as explaining grammar and content knowledge, asking for clarification, motivating learners, etc. This reflects the general research finding, whether from teachers' or learners' perspectives, that L1 is embraced when it is considered functional (Bieri, 2018;Campillo-Ferrer, Miralles-Martínez, & Sánchez-Ibáñez, 2020;Salvadori, 2019;Zanoni, 2018). From a Arab World English Journal www.awej.org ISSN: 2229-9327 180 different perspective, Moore and Stoelting's (2021) longitudinal study underlined the educational benefits of translanguaging, suggesting that secondary school students in Spain could improve English writing proficiency in a CLIL programme with proper L1 instruction.…”

“…This invites researchers to consider a pragmatic paradigm in future research to extend and explain quantitative results from a qualitative perspective, with more classroom stakeholders involved. Indeed, a majority of CLIL research about L1 use has taken a worldview that is either positivist (Jiménez & Martínez-Adrián, 2020;Salvadori, 2019;Zanoni, 2018) or interpretivist (Bieri, 2018;Sylvén, 2015;Tuder, 2016). Although there are some mixed-methods studies, such as Papaja and Wysocka-Narewska's ( 2020) one wherein close-ended and open-ended questions were included in the questionnaire to investigate teachers' perceptions on why L1 should be used, it seems that most of them have focused on examining the various functions of L1 to justify or refute the use of it in CLIL.…”

Multilingual Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in the Social Sciences

“…In the end, such a de facto amalgamation of languages is concordant with placing the subject at least on eye level in CLIL, because the main philosophy of translanguaging abates the focus on actual language and grammar use, retrenching in place of the negotiation of subject meaning. Echoing its increase in general attention, the number of very recent academic studies in applied educational contexts gravitating around translanguaging is on a sharp increase (e.g., Bieri, 2018;Daniel, Jiménez, Pray, & Pacheco, 2019;Erdin & Sali, 2020;Li & Luo, 2017;Lin & He, 2017;Nikula & Moore, 2019;Rabbidge, 2019;Rowe, 2018). Although some interpret translanguaging merely as a synonym of code-switching (e.g., Coyle et al, 2010;Marsh, 2002), it includes much more (García, 2009), namely looking beyond due to the important postulate of bilingual dynamism.…”

“…As translanguaging gained its popularity mainly within the last decade as well, demands to exploratively develop classroom pedagogies have been posed accordingly (e.g., Canagarajah, 2011;Creese & Blackledge, 2010;Lewis et al, 2012;Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2013;Park, 2013). In this vein, and very recently, an increasing number of authors has been advocating the close nexus of translanguaging with CLIL (Bieri, 2018;Lin & He, 2017;Nikula & Moore, 2019). As a matter of fact, most existing classroom studies about multilingual teaching are rather descriptive than interventionalist, uncovering occasional practices, without offering any prescriptions or pedagogical functions.…”

Mulilingual education: A contrastive analysis in Humanities, Social Sciences and Health Sciences

“…Language proficiency issues may raise some concerns when it comes to communication in the classroom setting. At this point, translanguaging practices are said to be valuable in the sense that the interaction of languages may help devise effective pedagogies (Bieri, 2018).…”