Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning

Abstract This paper is concerned with content and language integrated learning (CLIL), i.e. classrooms where a foreign or second language (L2) is used as the means of instruction and where content and language learning objectives merge. More specifically, it explores the potential of hands-on tasks in CLIL chemistry and physics lessons to serve as sites for using and learning subject-specific language, conceptualised as both special concepts and terminology as well as subject-specific ways of constructing meaning. Using discourse analysis, attention was directed to hands-on tasks as well as pre-task and post-task phases. The findings indicate that despite the evident content orientation in the tasks, language matters feature in the handling of the tasks. The pre-task and post-task phases seem more conducive to students engaging in subject-specific language use than the action-oriented hands-on tasks that involved highly indexical language use. Overall, the orientation to language of the subject remained implicit rather than explicit throughout. This indicates the importance of awareness raising so that CLIL teachers can better come into terms with their specific remit in language education as ones in charge of making the language of their subjects visible and approachable to students.

[1]  Tarja Nikula,et al.  Language learning in immersion and CLIL classrooms , 2014 .

[2]  Tom Morton,et al.  The Roles of Language in CLIL , 2012 .

[3]  Paul Seedhouse,et al.  A holistic approach to task-based interaction , 2009 .

[4]  R. Ellis.  Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings , 2009 .

[5]  Arja Piirainen-Marsh,et al.  Manual Guiding in Peer Group Interaction: A Resource for Organizing a Practical Classroom Task , 2013 .

[6]  Christiane Dalton-Puffer,et al.  Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From Practice to Principles? , 2011, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.

[7]  Margaret G. McKeown,et al.  Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction , 2002 .

[8]  E. Miller,et al.  Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives: Two Parallel SLA Worlds?. , 2006 .

[9]  Tarja Nikula,et al.  Effects of CLIL on a teacher’s classroom language use , 2010 .

[10]  J. Cummins.  Cognitive/Academic Language Proficiency, Linguistic Interdependence, the Optimum Age Question and Some Other Matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, No. 19. , 1979 .

[11]  Kristiina Skinnari,et al.  6. CLIL Teachers’ Beliefs about Integration and about Their Professional Roles: Perspectives from a European Context , 2016 .

[12]  S. Loewen.  INCIDENTAL FOCUS ON FORM AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING , 2005, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[13]  M. Paffard,et al.  Language Across the Curriculum , 1977 .

[14]  Francisco Lorenzo.  An Analytical Framework of Language Integration in L2 Content-based Courses: The European Dimension , 2007 .

[15]  Diane J. Tedick,et al.  Balancing Content and Language in Instruction: The Experience of Immersion Teachers , 2012 .

[16]  Roy Lyster,et al.  Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content: A counterbalanced Approach , 2007 .

[17]  Deborah J. Short,et al.  Making content comprehensible for English language learners : the SIOP model , 2000 .

[18]  Mary J. Schleppegrell.  The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics Perspective , 2004 .

[19]  Christiane Dalton-Puffer,et al.  Charting policies, premises and research on content and language integrated learning , 2010 .

[20]  Paul Seedhouse,et al.  Conversation Analysis and language learning , 2005, Language Teaching.

[21]  J. Lantolf,et al.  Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development , 2006 .

[22]  J. Lantolf.  Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning , 2013 .

[23]  R. Ellis.  Introduction: Investigating Form‐Focused Instruction , 2001 .

[24]  Christiane Dalton-Puffer.  A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education , 2013 .

[25]  C. Leung,et al.  Managing diversity in education , 2013 .

[26]  Tom Morton,et al.  Using a genre-based approach to integrating content and language in CLIL: the example of secondary history , 2010 .

[27]  Jan-Ola Östman,et al.  Handbook of Pragmatics , 2018, Handbook of Pragmatics.

[28]  Caroline Coffin.  Learning the language of school history: the role of linguistics in mapping the writing demands of the secondary school curriculum , 2006 .

[29]  Francisco Lorenzo.  Genre-based curricula: multilingual academic literacy in content and language integrated learning , 2013 .

[30]  Christiane Dalton-Puffer,et al.  The power of beliefs: lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes , 2013 .

[31]  Patricia A. Duff,et al.  Language Socialization Approaches to Second Language Acquisition: Social, cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages , 2011 .

[32]  R. Dwight Atkinson,et al.  Alternative approaches to second language acquisition , 2011 .

[33]  Historical explanations as situated practice in content and language integrated learning , 2010 .

[34]  Tarja Nikula.  On the role of peer discussions in the learning of subject-specific language use in CLIL , 2012 .

[35]  Cristina Escobar Urmeneta,et al.  Language learning through tasks in a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) science classroom , 2009 .

[36]  P. Seedhouse.  Task-based interaction , 1999 .

[37]  Eveliina Bovellan,et al.  Teachers' beliefs about learning and language as reflected in their views of teaching materials for Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) , 2014 .