The comprehending teacher: scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL)

References

• Ajayi, Lasisi. 2014. Vocabulary instruction and Mexican–American bilingual students: how two high school teachers integrate multiple strategies to build word consciousness in English language arts classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 18, no. 4: 1–22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.924475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banse, Holland W., Natalia A. Palacios, Eileen G. Merritt, and Sara E. Rimm-Kaufman. 2017. Scaffolding English language learners’ mathematical talk in the context of calendar math. Journal of Educational Research 110, no. 2: 199–208. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1075187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, Sheldon, Zohreh R. Eslami, and R. Malatesha Joshi. 2012. Core strategies to support English language learners. Educational Forum 76, no. 1: 105–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2011.628196.
   Google Scholar
• Bliss, Joan, Mike Askew, and Sheila Macrae. 1996. Effective teaching and learning: scaffolding revisited. Oxford Review of Education 22, no. 1: 37–61. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498960220103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boche, Benjamin, and Megan Henning. 2015. Multimodal scaffolding in the secondary English classroom curriculum. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 58, no. 7: 579–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruton, Anthony. 2011. Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System 39, no. 4: 523–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Julie. 2018. Practices that cross disciplines?: revisiting explicit instruction in elementary mathematics and English language arts. Teaching and Teacher Education 69: 324–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.10.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyle, Do. 2007. Content and language integrated learning: towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, no. 5: 543–62. doi: https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0
   Google Scholar
• Coyle, Do, Philip Hood, and David Marsh. 2010. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cummins, Jim. 2013. BICS and CALP: empirical support, theoretical status, and policy implications of a controversial distinction. In Framing Languages and Literacies: Socially Situated Views and Perspectives, ed. Margaret Hawkins, 10–23. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cummins, Jim, and Margaret Early. 2015. Big Ideas for Expanding Minds: Teaching English Language Learners Across the Curriculum. Oakville, ON: Rubicon Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2007. Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• De Graaff, Rick, Gerrit Koopman, Yulia Anikina, and Gerard Westhoff. 2007. An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, no. 5: 603–24. doi:https://doi.org/10.2167/beb462.0.
   Google Scholar
• Dong, Yu Ren. 2017. Tapping into English language learners’ (ELLs’) prior knowledge in social studies instruction. The Social Studies 108, no. 4: 143–51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2017.1342161.
   Google Scholar
• Echevarría, Jana, MaryEllen Vogt, and Deborah Short. 2017. Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners. The SIOP Model. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Farooq, M. 2007. Exploring the effects of spoken English classes of Japanese EFL learners. The Journal of Liberal Arts 2: 35–57.
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher, Fiona, and Gerry Colohan. 2017. T(w)o and fro: using the L1 as a language teaching tool in the CLIL classroom. The Language Learning Journal 45, no. 4: 485–98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.947382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaskins, Irene W., Sharon Rauch, Eleanor Gensemer, Elizabeth Cunicelli, Colleen O’Hara, Linda Six, and Theresa Scott. 1997. Scaffolding the development of intelligence among children who are delayed in learning to read. In Scaffolding Student Learning, ed. Kathleen Hogan and Michael Pressley, 43–73. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, Pauline. 2003. Mediating language learning: teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly 37, no. 2: 247–73. doi:https://doi.org/10.5054/tj.2010.215611. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3588504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbons, Pauline. 2015. Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning. Teaching English Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. New Hampshire: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Gritter, Kristine, Scott Beers, and Robert W. Knaus. 2013. Teacher scaffolding of academic language in an advanced placement U.S. history class. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 56, no. 5: 409–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossman, Pamela. 2015. Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO 5.0), Center to Support Excellence in Teaching (CSET). Palo Alto: Stanford University.
   Google Scholar
• Grossman, Pamela, Susanna Loeb, Julie Cohen, and James Wyckoff. 2013. Measure for measure: the relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers’ value-added scores. American Journal of Education 119, no. 3: 445–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/669901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan, Kathleen, and Michael Pressley. 1997. Scaffolding Student Learning. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
   Google Scholar
• Kayi-Aydar, Hayriye. 2013. Scaffolding language learning in an academic ESL classroom. ELT Journal 67, no. 3: 324–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinginger, Celeste. 2002. Defining the zone of proximal development in US foreign language education. Applied Linguistics 23, no. 2: 240–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.240
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klette, Kirsti, and Marte Blikstad-Balas. 2018. Observation manuals as lenses to classroom teaching: pitfalls and possibilities. European Educational Research Journal 17, no. 1: 129–46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117703228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klette, Kirsti, Marte Blikstad-Balas, and Astrid Roe. 2017. Linking instruction and student achievement. A research design for a new generation of classroom studies. Acta Didactica 11, no. 3: 1–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.5545
   Google Scholar
• Koole, Tom, and Ed Elbers. 2014. Responsiveness in teacher explanations: a conversation analytical perspective on scaffolding. Linguistics and Education 26: 57–69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasagabaster, David, and Juan Manuel Sierra. 2009. Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities. ELT Journal 94, no. 4: 367–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp082
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, Jay L. 1990. Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values, Language and Educational Processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Danli. 2012. Scaffolding adult learners of English in learning target form in a Hong Kong EFL university classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 6, no. 2: 127–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2011.626858.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, Tzu-Chiang, Ying-Shao Hsu, Shu-Sheng Lin, Maio-Li Changlai, Kun-Yuan Yang, and Ting-Ling Lai. 2012. A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 10, no. 2: 437–55. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9322-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, M.H., and C.J. Sato. 1983. Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms and functions of teachers’ questions. In Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition, ed. H.W. Seliger and M.H. Long, 268–86. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
   Google Scholar
• Mahan, Karina R, Lisbeth M. Brevik, and Marianne Ødegaard. 2018. Characterizing CLIL teaching: new insights from a lower secondary classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1472206
   Google Scholar
• Many, Joyce E., Deborah Dewberry, Donna Lester Taylor, and Kim Coady. 2009. Profiles of three preservice ESOL teachers’ development of instructional scaffolding. Reading Psychology 30, no. 2: 148–74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710802275256.
   Google Scholar
• Masako, Douglas O., and Kataoka C. Hiroko. 2008. Scaffolding in content based instruction of Japanese. Japanese Language and Literature 42, no. 2: 337–59.
   Google Scholar
• Maybin, J., Neil Mercer, and B. Stierer. 1992. Scaffolding: learning in the classroom. In Thinking Voices. The Work of the National Oracy Project, ed. Kate Norman, 186–95. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
   Google Scholar
• McNeil, Levi. 2011. Using talk to scaffold referential questions for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education 28, no. 3. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.005.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, Oliver, and Do Coyle. 2017. Pluriliteracies teaching for learning: conceptualizing progression for deeper learning in literacies development. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 5, no. 2: 199–222. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, Oliver, Do Coyle, Ana Halbach, Kevin Schuck, and Teresa Ting. 2015. A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum 28, no. 1: 41–57. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, Patricia H. 2005. Commentary on scaffolding: constructing and deconstructing development. New Ideas in Psychology 23, no. 3: 207–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2006.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortimer, Eduardo. 2003. Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• Morton, Tom. 2015. Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: a conversation analysis perspective. Language Learning Journal 43, no. 3: 256–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NESH. 2006. Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Law and the Humanities. National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Nikula, Tarja, Emma Dafouz, Pat Moore, and Ute Smit. 2016. Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Nikula, Tarja, and Karita Mård-Miettinen. 2014. Language learning in Immersion and CLIL classrooms. In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. Jan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren, vol. 18, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Pawan, Faridah. 2008. Content-area teachers and scaffolded instruction for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education 24, no. 6: 1450–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez-Cañado, María Luisa. 2016. Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European study. European Journal of Teacher Education 39, no. 2: 202–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1138104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda, and Jasone Cenoz. 2015. Way forward in the twenty-first century in content-based instruction: moving towards integration. Language, Culture and Curriculum 28, no. 1: 90–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda, and Victoria Zenotz. 2015. Reading strategies and CLIL: the effect of training in formal instruction. The Language Learning Journal 43, no. 3: 1–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda, and Victorria Zenotz. 2017. Learning strategies in CLIL classrooms: how does strategy instruction affect reading competence over time? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 21, no. 3: 319–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1391745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silliman, E., and L.C. Wilkinson. 1994. Discourse scaffolds for classroom intervention. In Language Learning Disabilities in School-Age Children and Adolescents, ed. G. Wallach and K. Butler. New York: Perason Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Smagorinsky, Peter. 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: 70–5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.10.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snell, Julia. 2011. Interrogating video data: systematic quantitative analysis versus micro-ethnographic analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 14, no. 3: 253–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2011.563624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svenhard, Britt Wenche, Kim Servant, Glenn Ole Hellekjær, and Henrik Bøhn. 2007. Norway. In Windows on CLIL, ed. Anne Maljers, David Marsh, and Dieter Wolff, 139–46. The Hague: European Platform for Dutch Education.
   Google Scholar
• Sætre, Per Jarle. 2013. The beginning of geography didactics in Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 67, no. 3: 120–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2013.796568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomlinson, Carol Ann, and Tonya R. Moon. 2013. Differentiation and classroom assessment. In SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment, ed. James H. McMillan, 415–30. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Torrez, Cheryl A., and Elizabeth Ann Claunch-Lebsack. 2013. Research on assessment in the social studies classroom. In SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment, ed. James H. McMillan, 461–72. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• van de Pol, Janneke, and E. Elbers. 2013. Scaffolding student learning: a micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 2, no. 1: 32–41. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Pol, Janneke, Monique Volman, and Jos Beishuizen. 2010. Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: a decade of research. Educational Psychology Review 22, no. 3: 271–96. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Lier, Leo. 2004. The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning. A Sociocultural Perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Verenikina, Irina. 2004. From theory to practice: what does the metaphor of scaffolding mean to educators today? Outlines: Critical Practice Studies 6, no. 2: 5–16.
   Google Scholar
• Walqui, Aida. 2006. Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: a conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9, no. 2: 159–80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050608668639
   Google Scholar
• Wood, David, Jerome S. Bruner, and Gail Ross. 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17, no. 2: 89–100. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar