How much L1 is too much? Teachers' language use in response to students’ abilities and classroom interaction in Content and Language Integrated Learning

Abstract

In Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms where students' L2 proficiency has not reached the threshold level, teachers have been observed to use L1 to assist students in grasping specific technical terms and abstract concepts. It is argued to be a ‘realistic’ approach to the learning problems caused by students' limited L2 proficiency, particularly in English-as-a-foreign-language contexts. Nonetheless, researchers have also warranted ‘judicious’ and ‘principled’ use of L1 so that both content and language learning are facilitated. The question thus remains is whether teachers can use L1 appropriately to suit their students' needs. This study seeks to address this question. It includes data from 30 Grade 10 lessons in Hong Kong CLIL classrooms, where students' L2 proficiency varied considerably. Using both quantitative and qualitative analyses, this study shows that when teaching students with limited L2 proficiency, teachers used a significant proportion of L1 in lessons to explain the subject content, interact with students and develop students' L2 metalinguistic awareness. In contrast, with students highly proficient in L2, teachers used little L1, mainly to provide translation equivalents for L2 subject-specific vocabulary items. This study thus shows that teachers seemed to be sensitive when making use of students' existing linguistic repertoires.

Keywords:

• content and language integrated learning
• classroom interaction
• code-switching
• bilingual education

Notes

1. As discussed in the Introduction paper, CLIL in this paper (and throughout this special issue) is used as an umbrella term to incorporate a variety of programmes which use L2 as the MOI for content subjects. Hence, this paper includes references to the research on different variants of CLIL implemented in different contexts (e.g. CLIL implemented in Europe and immersion programmes in Canada). Although it is acknowledged that these variants may be different in a number of ways, as Cenoz, Genesee, and Gorter (2014) argue, referring to relevant literature in various educational setting can further enhance the effectiveness and practice of CLIL.

2. Code-switching is broadly defined as the use of more than one language by a single speaker in the course of a conversation. From the second language acquisition perspective, the phenomenon of code-switching often concerns the use of L1 when the teacher shares the same mother tongue with the students in classrooms where the L2 is the default medium of teaching. However, as the research later unfolded, some teachers did frequently alternate between L1 and L2, and so the term ‘code-switching’ is also used in this study.

3. Band 1 is the highest band in the three-tier categorisation system of Primary 6 school-leavers in Hong Kong.

4. The percentages shown in this paper, unless otherwise specified, represent the percentage of time out of the interaction time (i.e. total lesson time minus non-interaction time).