This study reports on a six-month collaborative teacher education programme designed to support the implementation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in the Chinese primary education context. ‘Activity theory’ was used as an analytical framework to investigate the changes in cognition regarding CLIL experienced by two teacher educators – one at district level and the other at school level – and the factors that contributed to shifts in their cognition. Thematic analysis was conducted on data consisting of semi-structured interviews, field notes, a reflective report, and project meeting minutes. Results indicate that for both teacher educators, the programme functioned as an activity system that facilitated the emergence of advanced cognition of CLIL over the six months of the project, and did so along two distinct trajectories, one focusing on pedagogical applications of CLIL tenets and the other centring on implementing CLIL as an educational policy. The results also show how the collaborative nature of the teacher education programme fostered the expression of diverse views as well as shared motives through frequent interaction and co-construction of knowledge. As such, it offers a viable alternative to more traditional top-down approaches that are used to foster the professional development of teacher educators.
AdmiraalW.WesthoffG.de BotK. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 75–93.
2.
AireyJ. (2009). Estimating undergraduate bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden. International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 26–35.
3.
Aliaga SalasL.A. (2017). Teacher educators’ cognitions during the implementation of an innovative pre-service English teaching programme in Chile. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds. White Rose eTheses Online. Available at: https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/20749/1/Thesis_Loreto%20Aliaga.pdf (accessed May 2023).
4.
BanegasD.L. (2012). Integrating content and language in English language teaching in secondary education: Models, benefits, and challenges. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2, 111–136.
5.
BarkhuizenG. (2021). Language teacher educator identity. Cambridge University Press.
6.
BorgS. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum.
7.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
8.
BuchbergerF.CamposB.P.KallosD.StephensonJ. (Eds.). (2000). Green paper on teacher education in Europe: High quality teacher education for high quality education and training. Thematic Network on Teacher Education in Europe.
9.
Campillo-FerrerJ.M.Miralles-MartínezP.Sánchez-IbáñezR. (2020). CLIL teachers’ views on cognitive development in primary education. Palgrave Communications, 6, 97.
10.
CenozJ.GeneseeF.GorterD. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35, 243–262.
11.
Corral RoblesS. (2019). New insights into written competence in CLIL and non-CLIL programmes: Pedagogical Implications. Revista Electrónica De Investigación Y Docencia Creativa, 8, 289–304.
12.
CoyleD. (2008). CLIL: A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In Van Deusen-SchollN.HornbergerN.H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Second and foreign language education (pp. 97–111). 2nd edition.Springer.
13.
CoyleD. (2011). Setting the CLIL agenda for successful learning: What pupils have to say. Plenary conference at the II Congreso Internacional de Enseñanza Bilingüe en Centros Educativos. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid.
14.
CoyleD.HoodP.MarshD. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
15.
CreswellJ.W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th edition.Sage.
16.
CuiY. (2009). Lun jiaoyanshi de dingwei yu jiaoyanyuan de zhuanye fazhan [The positioning of jiaoyanshi and the professional development of jiaoyanyuan]. Shanghai Research on Education, 8, 4–8.
17.
Curdt-ChristiansenX.L. (2020). Observations and field notes: Recording lived experience. In MckinleyJ.RoseH. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 336–347). Routledge.
18.
Dalton-PufferC. (2011). Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From practice to principles?Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.
19.
EllisR.BarkhuizenG.P. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press.
20.
EngeströmY. (1995). Objects, contradictions and collaboration in medical cognition: An activity-theoretical perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 7, 395–412.
21.
FullanM. (1995). The limits and the potential of professional development. In GuskeyT.R.HubermanM. (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 253–268). Teachers College Press.
22.
FullanM. (2014). Teacher development and educational change. Routledge.
23.
GrossmanP.SmagorinskyP.ValenciaS. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108, 1–29.
24.
HeP.LinA. (2018). Becoming a ‘language-aware’ content teacher. Journal of Immersion and Content-based Language Education, 6, 162–188.
25.
HeathS.B.StreetB.V. (2008). Ethnography: Approaches to language literacy research. Teachers College Press, Columbia University Press.
26.
HuJ. (2012). Report at 18th party congress. People’s Publishing House.
27.
HüttnerJ.SmitU. (2014). CLIL (content and language integrated learning): The bigger picture. A response to: Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why . . . and why not. System, 41, 587–597. System, 44, 160–167.
28.
IkedaM.IzumiS.WatanabeY.PinnerR.DavisM. (2021). Soft CLIL and English language teaching: Understanding Japanese policy, practice and implications. Routledge.
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. 169–190). John Benjamins.
30.
KwakmanK. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 149–170.
31.
Leont′evA.N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Progress.
32.
LorenzoF. (2007). The sociolinguistics of CLIL: Language planning and language change in 21st century Europe. Revista Española De Lingüística Aplicada, 1, 27–38.
33.
LydonS.J.KingC. (2009). Can a single, short continuing professional development workshop cause change in the classroom?Professional Development in Education, 35, 63–82.
34.
LysterR. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins.
35.
MarshD. (2002). CLIL/EMILE: The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. European Commission.
36.
MarshD.LangéG. (Eds.). (2000). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages. University of Jyväskylä.
37.
MehistoP.MarshD.FrigolsM.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan.
38.
Ministry of Education. (2022). Yiwu jiaoyu yingyu kecheng biaozhun [English curriculum for compulsory education]. Beijing Normal University Press.
39.
Navarro-GuzmánJ.Romero-AlfaroE.Menacho-JiménezI.Aragón-MendizábalE. (2021). Teaching psychology at university using the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach. Porta Linguarum, 35, 77–91.
ParanA. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth?Applied Linguistics Review, 4, 317–342.
43.
PattonM.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd edition.Sage.
44.
Pérez-CañadoM.L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 315–341.
45.
Pérez-CañadoM.L. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature, 9, 9–31.
46.
Pérez-CañadoM.L. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL teacher training. Theory into Practice, 57, 1–10.
RubadeauZ.K. (2016). An exploration of English language teacher educators’ cognitions and practices in relation to the pedagogical purposes and efficacies of 21st-century digital technologies. Doctoral dissertation, Durham University. Durham E-Theses Online. Available at: http:etheses.dur.ac.uk/11506 (accessed May 2023).
49.
Ruiz de ZarobeY. (2010). Written production and CLIL: An empirical study. In Dalton-PufferC.NikulaT.SmitU. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 191–212). John Benjamins.
50.
RussellD. (2004). Looking beyond the interface, activity theory and distributed learning. In DanielsH.EdwardsA. (Eds.), The Routledge Falmer reader in psychology of education (pp. 307–326). Routledge Falmer.
51.
SomersT.SurmontJ. (2012). CLIL and immersion: How clear-cut are they?ELT Journal, 66, 113–116.
52.
TanM. (2011). Mathematics and science teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of language in content learning. Language Teaching Research, 15, 325–342.
53.
ThomasD. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research?Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14, 23–41.
54.
ThorkildsenR.SteinM.R.S. (1996). Fundamental characteristics of successful university-school partnerships. School Community Journal, 6, 79–92.
55.
UrmenetaC.E. (2013). Learning to become a CLIL teacher: Teaching, reflection and professional development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 334–353.
56.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
57.
WertschJ.V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford University Press.
58.
WilsonJ.D. (1990). The selection and professional development of trainers for initial teacher training. European Journal of Teacher Education, 13, 7–24.
59.
ZhaoH. (2018). Woguo jiaoyanyuan juese de bianqian yu zhanwang [The development and outlook of the role ofjiaoyanyuan in China]. Curriculum, Teaching material and Method, 10, 111–116.
60.
ZhuX.LiD.DuanY. (2021). Daxue yingyu jiaoshi neirong yuyan ronghe jiaoxue xinnian yu jiaoxue shijian yanjiu [Examining college English teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices in Content and Language Integration]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 4, 103–112, 150.
61.
ZhuY. (2022). Implementing tasks in young learners’ language classrooms: A collaborative teacher education initiative through task evaluation. Language Teaching Research, 26, 530–551.
62.
ZhuY.ShuD. (2017a). The Haitong project: Exploring a collaborative approach to implement TBLT in primary classrooms in China. Language Teaching, 50, 579–585.
63.
ZhuY.ShuD. (2017b). Implementing foreign language curriculum innovation in a Chinese secondary school: An ethnographic study on teacher cognition and classroom practices. System, 66, 100–112.
