Teacher scaffolding plays a crucial role in shaping the quality of classroom learning, yet little is known about the effective features of scaffolding in classes using content language integrated learning (CLIL), especially in terms of its effects on learners’ language and cognitive development. To address this issue, the study adopts a classroom discourse analysis approach to capture features of effective teacher scaffolding in a CLIL-framed intensive reading class. Results showed a perceived increase in learners’ language and cognitive abilities while also revealing a series of effective teacher scaffolding strategies in CLIL. These include frequent use of dialogic inquiry and incidental feedback in discourse extensions, and the variation of teacher scaffolding strategies in response to students’ learning needs. The findings will inform the development of the CLIL pedagogy in EFL (English as a foreign language) education in China and other parts of the world.
AljaafrehA.LantolfJ.P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
2.
AndersonL.W.KrathwohlD.R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
3.
BallP.KellyK.CleggJ. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BarnesD. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In MercerN.HodgkinsonS. (Eds.), Exploring talk in schools: Inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes (pp. 1–17). London: Sage.
5.
BoydM.P. (2015). Relations between teacher questioning and student talk in one elementary ELL classroom. Journal of Literacy Research, 47, 370–404.
6.
ByrnesH.MaximH.H.NorrisJ.M. (2010). Special issue: Realizing advanced foreign language writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. The Modern Language Journal [supplement], 94(s1), 1–202.
7.
CammarataL.TedickD.J.OsbornT.A. (2016). Content-based instruction and curricular reforms: Issues and goals. In CammarataL. (Ed.), Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp. 1–23). London: Routledge.
8.
ChaiklinS. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In KozulinA.GindisB.AgeyevV.S.MillerS.M. (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CoyleD. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 543–562.
10.
CoyleD.HoodP.MarshD. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for language: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Language Policy Unit.
12.
CreeseA.BlackledgeA. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching?The Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–115.
13.
CzwenarI. (2014). Analysing spoken language for complexity, accuracy and fluency: Some methodological considerations. In Szubko-SitarekW.SalskiŁ.StalmaszczykP. (Eds.) Language learning, discourse and communication: Second language learning and teaching. Cham: Springer.
14.
Dalton-PufferC. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.
15.
Dalton-PufferC.NikulaT.SmitU. (2010). Charting policies, premises and research on content and language integrated learning. In Dalton-PufferC.NikulaT.SmitU. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
16.
DanielsH. (2016). Vygotsky and dialogic pedagogy. In SkidmoreD.MurakamiK. (Eds.), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning (pp. 48–64). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
17.
de GraaffR.KoopmanG.J.AnikinaY.WesthoffG. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 603–624.
18.
De GuerreroM.C.M.VillamilO.S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51–68.
19.
EllisR. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 3, 405–428.
20.
EngeströmY. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In EngeströmY.MiettinenR.PunamäkiR. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GarcíaO.LiW. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
GibbonsP. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 247–273.
23.
GibbonsP. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
24.
GukI.KelloggD. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching. Language Teaching Research, 11, 281–299.
25.
HallG. (2011). Exploring English language teaching: Language in action. New York: Routledge.
26.
HicksD. (1996). Discourse, learning, and teaching. Review of Research in Education, 21, 49–95.
27.
InnesR.B. (2007). Dialogic communication in collaborative problem solving groups. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1, 1–19.
28.
JäppinenA. (2008). Thinking and content learning of Mathematics and Science as cognitional development in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19, 147–168.
29.
JexenflickerS.Dalton-PufferC. (2010). The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In Dalton-PufferC.NikulaT.SmitU. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 169–191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30.
JinY.FanJ. (2011). Test for English Majors (TEM) in China. Language Testing, 28, 589–596.
31.
KooleT.ElbersE. (2014). Responsiveness in teacher explanations: A conversation analytical perspective on scaffolding. Linguistics and Education, 26, 57–69.
32.
LantolfJ.P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In LantolfJ.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (2008). Introduction to sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. In LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 1–53). London: Equinox.
34.
LantolfJ.ThorneS. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590–619.
36.
LaRussoM.KimH.Y.SelmanR., et al. (2016). Contributions of academic language, perspective taking, and complex reasoning to deep reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9, 201–222.
37.
LasagabasterD. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5, 3–18.
38.
LiuJ. (2018). China’s standards of English language ability and English testing and assessment. China Examinations, 11, 1–6.
39.
LongM. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
40.
LorenzoF.CasalS.MooreP. (2009). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education. Applied Linguistics, 31, 418–442.
41.
LuX. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15, 474–496.
42.
LuX. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 190–208.
43.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, National Language Commission of the People’s Republic of China (2018). China’s standards of English language ability (GF 0018-2018). Beijing: Higher Education Press.
44.
NassajiH. (2016). Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20, 1–28.
45.
NikulaT. (2010). Effects of CLIL on a teacher’ s classroom language use. In Dalton-PufferC.NikulaT.SmitU. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 105–125). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
46.
NikulaT.Dalton-PufferC.GarcíaA.L. (2013). CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1, 70–100.
47.
O’ConnorM.C.MichaelsS. (2008). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In HicksD. (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
PaltridgeB. (2002). Genre, text type, and the English for academic purposes (EAP) classroom. In JohnsA.M. (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 73–91). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
PoehnerM.E.InfanteP. (2016). Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transforming second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 332–357.
50.
RobinsonP. (2011). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61, 1–36.
51.
Ruiz de ZarobeY. (2015). The effects of implementing CLIL in education. In Juan-GarauM.Salazar-NogueraJ. (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 51–69). Heidelberg: Springer.
52.
Ruiz de ZarobeY. (2017). Language awareness and CLIL. In CenozJ.GorterD.MayS. (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism (pp. 149–161). Cham: Springer.
53.
SkidmoreD. (2016). Pedagogy and dialogue. In SkidmoreD.MurakamiK. (Eds.), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning (pp. 98–111). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
54.
SmagorinskyP. (2018). Deconflating the ZPD and instructional scaffolding: Retranslating and reconceiving the zone of proximal development as the zone of next development. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 16, 70–75.
55.
SunY. (2017). Liberal English education. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 49, 859–870.
56.
SwainM. (1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6, 68–83.
57.
SwainM. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In HeinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–485). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58.
SwainM. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In ByrnesH. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–109). London: Continuum.
59.
SwainM.KinnearP.SteinmanL. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
60.
TothP.D. (2011). Social and cognitive factors in making teacher-led classroom discourse relevant for second language development. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 1–25.
61.
TroyanF.J.CammarataL.MartelJ. (2017). Integration PCK: Modeling the knowledge(s) underlying a world language teacher’s implementation of CBI. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 458–476.
62.
UrmenetaC.E.WalshS. (2017). Classroom interactional competence in content and language integrated learning. In MortonA.L.T. (Ed.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 183–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
63.
van de PolJ.VolmanM.BeishuizenJ. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–296.
64.
van LierL. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New York: Longman.
65.
van LierL. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In LantolfJ.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245–261). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
66.
van LierL. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Kluwer Academic.
67.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
68.
WalquiA. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 159–180.
69.
WalshS. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London: Routledge.
70.
WellsG. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71.
WertschJ.V.TulvisteP.HagstromF. (1993). A sociocultural approach to agency. In FormanE.MinickN.StoneA. (Eds.), Context for learning (pp. 336–356). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72.
WhittakerR.LlinaresA. (2009). CLIL in social science classrooms: Analysis of spoken and written productions. In Ruiz de ZarobeY.CatalánR.M.J. (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 215–234). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
73.
WhittakerR.LlinaresA.McCabeA. (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 15, 343–362.
74.
WoodD.BrunerJ.S.RossG. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Child Psychology, 17, 89–100.
75.
YangL.ZhangL. (2010). Exploring the role of reformulations and a model text in EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching Research, 14, 464–484.
76.
ZhangL. (2016). EFL teacher learning and development based on classroom discourse research: Rationale, issues and methods. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching, 37, 47–54.
77.
ZhangL.LiD. (2019). An integrated development of students’ language and cognition under the CLIL pedagogy. Foreign Language Education in China, 2, 16–24.
78.
ZhangL.SunY. (2014). A sociocultural theory-based writing curriculum reform on English majors. Foreign Language World, 5, 2–10.
79.
ZhangL.YeH. (2018). The role of college EFL teachers in curriculum reform: A phenomenographic case analysis. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 4, 26–33.
80.
ZhangL.WuY.JinL.SunY.ZhouY. (2013). The construction of an interactive mechanism between English major’s curriculum reform and teacher education: A case of the English department in BFSU. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 3, 30–33.
