Translanguaging practices in CLIL and non-CLIL biology lessons in Switzerland

Studies on translanguaging in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes have predominately focused on the use of the first language (L1) as a potential resource in CLIL lessons. This article argues that translanguaging practices that involve more than students’ L1 are valuable, even...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inE-journALL Vol. 5; no. 2; pp. 91 - 109
Main Author Bieri, Aline S.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published E-JournALL 31.12.2018
Subjects
biology
content and language integrated learning (clil)
switzerland
translanguaging practices
translanguaging with source languages
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Studies on translanguaging in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes have predominately focused on the use of the first language (L1) as a potential resource in CLIL lessons. This article argues that translanguaging practices that involve more than students’ L1 are valuable, even necessary, pedagogies in both CLIL and non-CLIL biology lessons. The qualitative analysis of transcripts from 31 CLIL (English) and non-CLIL (German) biology lessons in Switzerland reveals that translanguaging involving the source languages of the technical vocabulary represents a particularly useful tool for negotiating meaning. Only one of the two instructors who participated in this study engaged in this kind of translanguaging when discussing the semantic content of technical vocabulary. Interestingly, this instructor had more extreme attitudes concerning classroom linguistic behaviour, upholding the need for monolingual (i.e., English-only) practices in his classroom. This observation indicates that teachers’ stances towards translanguaging do not necessarily coincide with their practices.
ISSN:2376-905X
2376-905X
DOI:10.21283/2376905X.9.142