Abstract

 
 
 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.
 
 
Highlights
Language education has been dealt with and believed to be best achieved by promoting strict monolingual instruction and keeping languages separated
4.1.1 Salient translanguaging in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) biology lessons Teachers used salient translanguaging practices in CLIL biology lessons to clarify and explain key lexis and scientific concepts, exploit more proficient English students’ knowledge, and to allow for linguistic creativity and for students to inquire about key lexis and its meanings
By far the most frequent salient translanguaging practice used by the teachers is shown in the following excerpts, where a technical term is directly followed by a translation in the mainstream language (ML) (Excerpts 1 and 2, see Appendix for transcription conventions)
Summary
Language education has been dealt with and believed to be best achieved by promoting strict monolingual instruction and keeping languages separated. Even within Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and applied linguistics research, language acquisition and learning have typically been treated as processes that are ideally “uncontaminated by knowledge and use of one’s other languages” Recently has the field of applied linguistics and educational research begun to shift from a monolingual perspective toward a more inclusive and flexible perspective on multilingualism. This has been coined the multilingual turn, in that it assumes “multilingualism, rather than monolingualism, as the new norm of applied linguistic and sociolinguistic analysis” Even though awareness of the monolingual bias in research is rising and shifting, as evidenced in recent publications problematizing this issue (see e.g. Conteh & Meier, 2014; May, 2014b), in practice this shift is far from complete as the prevalent ideology in classrooms is still often monolingually oriented (Cummins, 2005, 2007, 2008)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
