Previous studies have recommended employing genre analysis as a supportive framework for English scientific content in the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) context. However, little is known about how CLIL teachers collaborate to co-create genre-based scaffolds and how they perceive the benefits and challenges of genre analysis for material development through interdisciplinary teacher collaborations. This study aims to fill these gaps by exploring how two physics teachers and two English teachers paired to co-create scaffolds to improve students’ comprehension of English scientific materials. This study also investigates the teachers’ perceptions of their genre-based scaffolding design experiences via interdisciplinary teacher collaborations. This study is a qualitative case study, collecting data from scaffolds in English scientific materials, reflective reports, and interviews. The findings show that the teachers developed explicit tutorials, color-marking, and comprehension questions to develop students’ genre knowledge, linguistic awareness, and content understanding. This study also reveals that the teachers gained insights into analysing English scientific texts through input processing techniques, thus developing their genre literacy and pedagogical knowledge through interdisciplinary teacher collaborations. This study contributes to the literature on genre-based pedagogy in the CLIL context by highlighting the use of input processing scaffolds to develop learners’ linguistic awareness about textual genres in English scientific materials.
AdamsJ.LimF.V. (2020). Towards a functional literacy approach to teach the language of science in the Singapore classroom. Pedagogical Linguistics, 1, 125–148.
2.
BanegasD.L. (2022). Research into practice: CLIL in South America. Language Teaching, 55, 379–391.
3.
BriskM.E. (2014). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-5 classrooms. Routledge.
4.
CervettiG.N.PearsonP.D. (2018). Reading and understanding science texts. In BaileyA.L.MaherC.A.WilkinsonL.C. (Eds.), Language, literacy, and learning in the STEM disciplines (pp. 79–100). Routledge.
5.
CreswellJ.W.MillerD.L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 124–130.
6.
De OliveiraL.C.LanS.W. (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: A genre-based approach to teaching English language learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 23–39.
7.
DerewiankaB. (2015). The contribution of genre theory to literacy education in Australia. In TurbillJ.BartonG.BrockC. (Eds.), Teaching writing in today’s classrooms: Looking back to looking forward (pp. 69–86). Australian Literary Educators’ Association.
8.
DoizA.LasagabasterD.PavónV. (2019). The integration of language and content in English-medium instruction courses: Lecturers’ beliefs and practices. Ibérica, 38, 151–176.
9.
FangZ.SchleppegrellM.J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53, 587–597.
10.
FenwickL.HerringtonM. (2021). Teacher use of genre pedagogy: Engaging students in dialogue about content area language during text deconstruction. Language and Education, 36, 1–16.
11.
Fernández-FontechaA.O’HalloranK.L.WignellP.TanS. (2020). Scaffolding CLIL in the science classroom via visual thinking: A systemic functional multimodal approach. Linguistics and Education, 55, Article 100788.
12.
GarcíaM.D.C.M.VázquezV.P. (2012). Investigating the coexistence of the mother tongue and the foreign language through teacher collaboration in CLIL contexts: Perceptions and practice of the teachers involved in the plurilingual programme in Andalusia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 573–592.
HallidayM.A.K. (1993a). The analysis of scientific texts in English and Chinese. In HallidayM.A.K.MartinJ.R. (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 124–132). Falmer Press.
15.
HallidayM.A.K. (1993b). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In HallidayM.A.K.MartinJ.R. (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 76–94). Falmer Press.
16.
HenryN. (2024). Explicit information, input processing, and second language acquisition. In WongW.BarcroftJ. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and input processing (pp. 302–314). Routledge.
17.
HuJ.GaoX.A. (2018). Linguistic demands in English-language science textbooks in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5, 170–180.
18.
KoopmanG.J.SkeetJ.GraaffR.D. (2014). Exploring content teachers’ knowledge of language pedagogy: A report on a small-scale research project in a Dutch CLIL context. The Language Learning Journal, 42, 123–136.
19.
LeowR.P. (2019). ISLA: How implicit or how explicit should it be? Theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical/curricular issues. Language Teaching Research, 23, 476–493.
20.
LiD.ZhangL. (2022). Exploring teacher scaffolding in a CLIL-framed EFL intensive reading class: A classroom discourse analysis approach. Language Teaching Research, 26, 333–360.
21.
LlinaresA. (2015). Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28, 58–73.
22.
LlinaresA.McCabeA. (2023). Systemic functional linguistics: The perfect match for content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26, 245–250.
23.
LlinaresA.MortonT. (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. John Benjamins Publishing.
24.
LoY.Y. (2014). Collaboration between L2 and content subject teachers in CBI: Contrasting beliefs and attitudes. RELC Journal, 45, 181–196.
25.
LoY.Y. (2019). Development of the beliefs and language awareness of content subject teachers in CLIL: Does professional development help?International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22, 818–832.
26.
LoY.Y.FungD. (2020). Assessments in CLIL: The interplay between cognitive and linguistic demands and their progression in secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23, 1192–1210.
27.
LoY.Y.LinA.M.Y.CheungT.C.L. (2018). Supporting English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) learners’ science literacy development in CLIL: A genre-based approach. In TangK.-S.DanielssonK. (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. 79–96). Springer.
28.
LoY.Y.LuiW.-M.WongM. (2019). Scaffolding for cognitive and linguistic challenges in CLIL science as assessments. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7, 289–314.
29.
LorenzoF. (2013). Genre-based curricula: Multilingual academic literacy in content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 375–388.
30.
LuceroA. (2014). Teachers’ use of linguistic scaffolding to support the academic language development of first-grade emergent bilingual students. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14, 534–561.
31.
MahanK.R. (2022). The comprehending teacher: Scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). The Language Learning Journal, 50, 74–88.
32.
MarongiuM.A. (2019). Teaching materials and CLIL teaching. Linguæ & – Rivista di lingue e culture moderne, 18, 81–104.
33.
MehistoP.MarshD.FrigolsM.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan.
34.
MonbecL. (2020). Scaffolding content in an online Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) module. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2, 157–173.
35.
MooreP.LorenzoF. (2015). Task-based learning and content and language integrated learning materials design: Process and product. The Language Learning Journal, 43, 334–357.
36.
NigroR.G.TrivelatoS.F. (2012). Knowledge, its application, and attitudes associated with the reading of diverse genres of science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2529–2564.
37.
PachecoM.B.DanielS.M.PrayL.C. (2017). Scaffolding practice: Supporting emerging bilinguals’ academic language use in two classroom communities. Language Arts, 95, 63–76.
38.
ParkJ.ChangJ.TangK.S.TreagustD.F.WonM. (2020). Sequential patterns of students’ drawing in constructing scientific explanations: Focusing on the interplay among three levels of pictorial representation. International Journal of Science Education, 42, 677–702.
39.
PhamP.A.UnaldiA. (2022). Cross-curricular collaboration in a CLIL bilingual context: The perceptions and practices of language teachers and content subject teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25, 2918–2932.
40.
PunJ.K.H. (2019). Salient language features in explanation texts that students encounter in secondary school chemistry textbooks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, Article 100781.
41.
RoseD.MartinJ.R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox.
42.
RuiX.C.LiX.C.LiY.X.LoY.Y. (2024). Examining the effects of teacher collaboration on student learning in a CLIL classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 27, 66–82.
43.
SeguíL.P. (2020). Are pre-service foreign language teachers ready for CLIL in Catalonia? A needs analysis from stakeholders’ perspective. Porta Linguarum, 33, 279–295.
44.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications.
45.
SuzukiY.CrowtherD. (2025). Addressing the role of ‘linguistic knowledge’ in global Englishes pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 59, 529–540.
46.
SymonsC. (2017). Instructional practices for scaffolding emergent bilinguals’ comprehension of informational science texts. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 16, 62–80.
47.
UnsworthL. (2001). Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 585–609.
48.
VanPattenB. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Ablex.
49.
VanPattenB. (2015). Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53, 91–109.
50.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
51.
WalentaM. (2018). Balancing linguistic and extra-linguistic gains in CLIL: A case for content-based structured input. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 578–590.
52.
WollN.PaquetP.-L. (2025). Developing crosslinguistic awareness through plurilingual consciousness-raising tasks. Language Teaching Research, 29, 63–87.
53.
WongW.BarcroftJ. (Eds.). (2024). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and input processing. Routledge.
54.
Yi LoY.LinA.M.Y. (2019). Teaching, learning and scaffolding in CLIL science classrooms. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7, 151–328.
55.
ZarobeY.R.D.CatalánR.M.J. (2009). Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe. Multilingual Matters.
