between concepts and thinking in the vehicular language; models of linguistic interaction and rhetoric.
Wolff (2012) observes that ‘ In order to be able to develop and use this target professional competence the future content-‐subject and CLIL teacher will have to acquire a basic knowledge of how learners learn languages in a CLIL context. She needs to be acquainted with the developmental stages of language learning, with the main SLA theories (Second language acquisition), with the factors influencing second language learning, and with the differences between first and second language learning. He also needs to know how learners are able to store and retain the new language in their brain, how they are able to separate it from their first or any other language they speak. And, finally, he or she will have to know how language is used, how humans comprehend and produce language either orally or in written form. This background knowledge is necessary to be able to understand and deploy the strategies necessary to promote language learning in a content class’ (2012: 112). In terlation to use of more than one language in the classroom, Garciá and Pavón Vázquez (2012) commenting on research conducted in Andalusia state that `… teachers clearly perceive the benefits of linguistic comparisons as a means to strengthen the use of two or three languages. They welcome the process by which languages help each other and assist in the assimilation and consolidation of academic content (2012: 16).
3.3 Learner’s Language Awareness
Research by Dalton-‐Puffer (2007); Ruiz de Zarobe (2008) Lasagabaster (2009), Lasagabaster and Sierra (2009), Yassin (2010), Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010), Navés and Victori (2010), Várkuti (2010) Navés (2011), Dalton-‐Puffer, Nikula and
Smit (2011) are some recent examples of research conducted in Europe and South-‐
East Asia which show findings on language awareness in CLIL environments. As CLIL has developed as a specific inter-‐disciplinary educational approach, so it has attracted not only diverse types of research on learning outcomes which have been mostly focussed on language and communication, but also critical review. One of the problems with both conducting and interpreting research is that education needs to be treated as distinct from the natural sciences when the object of study involves social action. Researching CLIL through mechanistic means results in the risk of missing understanding of key variables which are a significant element in whether a specific educational experience brings benefits or not. For example, studying grammatical development in a set of 20 hours teaching and learning, worthy in itself, is not going to capture other aspects of impact on learners such as concept formation, critical thinking, or motivation. Not all research frameworks can be applied to situations such as education which is extremely complex to examine due to the varied parameters and variables involved in what is primarily social action.
As an example we can turn to Bruton (2011), who challenges work in the field with respect to language learning outcomes. A major problem with evaluating research in this field is that firstly, many of the studies are rather small-‐scale, and secondly that they are focused on very specific situations. Another more significant problem relates to the sometimes narrow focus which researchers may feel bound to adopt, and which critics can highlight in identifying weaknesses, or otherwise challenge findings as reported. Language awareness is a broad area of considerable significance not only for additional language acquisition, but also competences for learning and more holistic development of how young people accumulate
experience and build knowledge through languages. Thus it can be demanding to isolate and test in research environments.
Bruton (2011:524) comments on the research by Marsh el. (2000) on a study in Hong Kong where the authors write ‘In summary, Hong Kong high school students were very disadvantaged by Instruction in English in geography, history, science and, to a lesser extent, mathematics’ (2000:337). He uses this as an example of research that he considers unfortunate for the cannon of research findings that are supportive of the positive outcomes of CLIL. And yet such findings from the unique context of education in Hong Kong at the time the research was conducted does not easily enable transferability of results to, for example, contexts in other countries.
The Marsh et al. (2000) study was extensive and detailed. However, it was not structured in such a way as to include parameters in the study itself on teacher quality, pedagogies and indeed competence to use the additional language, or otherwise have knowledge of the first language of the students involved. The authors note that ‘An implicit assumption is made that the quality of teaching was equivalent in high schools differing in language of instruction, and that …’because we had no measures of the quality of teaching effectiveness, we cannot pursue this conjecture in the present investigation’ (Marsh, 2006). In addition, the very specific example of introducing teaching through English in fast-‐changing socio-‐
political context of Hong Kong at that time was found to be positive in respect to language learning, and there were indicators that after the initial three year period of studying academic subjects through the medium of English, that the ‘ negative effects may lessen as English proficiency improves during the remaining three years of high school e.g. grades 10-‐12 not studied in this analysis’ (2000: 27). For further understanding of the context in Hong Kong in situ there are very specific drivers active that can reduce learning outcomes such as even the language of the
classroom. Code-‐mixing and code-‐switching, for example, are widely reported with respect to Hong Kong (see, for instance Johnson, 1997, see also Lin & Man 2009).
The Hong Kong situation was not only highly specific but one where policy shift resulted in children mid-‐educational career switching to English without teachers being adequately prepared or otherwise trained to enact CLIL pedagogies in the classroom. The situation was detrimental because at that point neither the students not the teachers were in a language-‐supportive educational environment.
The same can be said of the Malaysian context in the Teaching of Science and Mathematics in English TeSME, locally referred to as PPSMI (Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris). A similar situation applies as in Hong Kong. The language of instruction was changed but the systemic infrastructure to enable smooth transition was minimally implemented (Yassin et al. 2009; Yassin et al. 2010).
Language awareness invites a cross-‐disciplinary approach to languages in education. This is often not captured in research because of the breadth of knowledge and skills involved, and is prone to being side-‐lined in the interpretation and critique of specific studies in equally specific locations. But there is one emerging field of research that enables features of language awareness to be explored, and this is within the cognitive neurosciences.
Bialystock and Barac (2012) report on a two phase study which examined learners in CLIL-‐type environments to examine if reported advantages of bilingualism resulting from children being raised in two languages could be found amongst students in immersion education environments. They look at the development of nonverbal executive control and metalinguistic awareness. Both of these relate to language awareness. Executive control concerns goal-‐directed thinking and action
(Bialystock and Viswanathan 2009; Yang, Yang, and Lust 2011), and metalinguistic awareness (Cummins 1978) where a person can objectify language as a process and understanding of the rules that govern language and language usage.
Calibrating results from home-‐based bilingual development, and experience of CLIL-‐type provision in immersion environments, the findings of the first study showed that ‘progress in metalinguistic ability and nonverbal executive control were associated with the bilingual experience’ (2012:69) resulting from dual language education. The second study ‘aimed to identify features of the bilingual experience (in dual language education) that contribute to metalinguistic and executive function tasks as children become bilingual. The results of the regression analyses were remarkably consistent: metalinguistic performance improved with increased knowledge of the language of testing and executive control performance improved with increased experience in a bilingual environment. This pattern was found across different samples of children in different types of immersion education programs performing different tasks’ (2012:71).
Noting that metalinguistic advantage can be found at modest levels of bilingualism the authors comment that the experience of dual-‐language education may be a factor enabling the students to ‘figuring out structural relations within language’
(2012:72). This is also supported by Foursha-‐Stevenson and Nicoladis (2011) on syntactic awareness which is reported to develop quite in bilinguals and which could be a resource in a CLIL environment where more than one language is used.
The issue of type of teaching and learning environment is of particular significance in this respect.
Le Pichon et al. (2010) report on contexts in which a foreign language are taught and influence on strategic competence. Their findings indicate that explicit
language learning experience brings benefits that are greater than only exposure to the language in non-‐formal contexts. They comment that exposure in a formal (educational) context and after the age of four may provide children with a conscious experience of learning a new language, whereas learning a second language from birth onwards in a non-‐formal (natural) context may not provide this specific experience (2011:449). This conscious experience of learning a language relates to the teacher ensuring that language support is provided throughout courses and programmes. Also cited by le Pichon et al., Francis (2004) reporting on nonlinear processing as a comprehension strategy comments Clearly bilingualism is not a necessary condition for developing advanced levels of metalinguistic awareness, (…) In fact, bilingualism ‘per se’ may turn out to have a decidedly secondary role. Rather, as has been suggested, metalinguistic development may be favoured in ‘learning’ contexts in which students of a L2 are compelled to apply higher-‐order strategies(…)’ (2004: 29)
Research of this type complements the wealth of research from dual-‐language education environments in North America, and increasingly now within Europe, which focuses on types of language and communicative development which takes place when students learn content through an additional language. The relationship between the emerging educational neurosciences and CLIL is taken up in Chapter 4 but it appears to be the case that exposure to the experience of CLIL-‐
type provision can support these two fundamentally important pillars which support development of language awareness.
Mehisto (2012) observes that ‘Teachers have often not been trained in taking on the challenging task of teaching academic language. This language needs to be broken down into its component parts and made visible to students so they can make a conscious effort to learn it and use it. Academic language consists of much
more than subject-‐specific vocabulary and terminology. Academic language has a particular tone; is often evidence-‐based; uses categories and concepts; has specific functions that may require hypothesizing or explaining causes and consequences; is more precise than spoken language; uses conventions such as footnotes; avoids slang; and is often cognitively demanding and context-‐reduced’
(2012: 45). This is an essential issue for CLIL because it means that this type of language needs to be given very specific attention during teaching and learning sequences, and be embedded through scaffolding according to just-‐in-‐time techniques so as to ensure successful learning outcomes. It is this function in CLIL that helps support continuous language awareness development.
REFERENCES
Andrews, S. (2001) The language awareness of the L2 teacher: Its impact upon pedagogical practice, Language Awareness 10:2-‐3: 75-‐90.
Andrews, S. (2003) Teacher language awareness and the professional knowledge base of the L2 teacher, Language Awareness 12:2: 81-‐95.
Andrews, S. (2007) Teacher Language Awareness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aronin, L. and Singleton, D. (2008) Multilingualism as a new linguistic dispensation, International Journal of Multilingualism 5: 1-‐16.
Aronin, L. & Hufeisen, B. (2009) (eds.) The Exploration of Multilingualism:
Development of research on L3., Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Assche, E., Duyck, W., Hartsuiker, R. and Diependaele, K. (2009) Does bilingualism change native-‐language reading, Psychological Science, 20, 8: 923-‐927.
Bardovi-‐Harlig, K. (1996) Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. F. Bouton (ed.), Pragmatics and language learning Vol.
7, pp. 21-‐39, Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-‐Champaign.
Bialystock, E. and Codd, J. (1997) Cardinal limits: Evidence from language awareness and bilingualism for developing concepts of numbers, Cognitive Development 12:1, pp.85-‐106.
Bialystok,E., Shenfield, T. and Codd, J.(2000) Language,scripts, and the
environment: factors in developing concepts of print. Developmental Psychology 36:
66-‐76.
Bialystock, E. and Barac, R. (2012) Emerging bilingualism: Dissociating advantages for metalinguistic awareness and executive control, Cognition, 122: 67-‐73
Bolitho, R., Carter, R., Hughes, R., Ivanic, R., Masuhara, H., and Tomlinson, B. (2003) Ten questions about language awareness, Applied Linguistics 57: 3, pp.251-‐259.
Bruton, A. (2011) is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-‐evaluating some of the research, System 39: 523-‐532.
Carlisle, J., Beeman, M., Hull Davis, L., Spharim, G. (1999) Relationship of
metalinguistic capabilities and reading achievement for children who are becoming bilingual, 1999, Applied Psycholinguistics 20: 459–478.
Carlson, S. M., & Meltzoff, A. M. (2008). Bilingual experience and executive functioning in young children. Developmental science, 11, 282–298.
Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. (2011)Focus on multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing, in The Modern language Journal, pp.356-‐369, 95, 3.
Clarkson, P. (2007) Australian Vietnamese students learning mathematics: High ability bilinguals and their use of their languages. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 64: 195-‐215.
Costa, A., Hernández, M., & Sebastián-‐Gallés, N. (2008). Bilingualism aids conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition, 106, 59–86.
Cook, V. Using the first language in the classroom, Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 3: 402-‐423.
Cummins, J. (1978) Bilingualism and the development of metalinguistic awareness, Journal of Cross-‐cultural Psychology, 9: 131-‐149.
Dagenais, D., Walsh, N., Armand F., Maraillet, E. (2008) Collaboration and co-‐
construction of knowledge during language awareness activities in Canadian elementary school, Language Awareness 17: 2: 139-‐155.
Dalton-‐Puffer, C. (2007) Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Classrooms, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dalton-‐Puffer, C., Nikula, T., and Smit U. (eds.) (2010) Language use and language learning in CLIL. (AALS Series 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Edge, J. (1988) Applying linguistics in English language teacher training for speakers of other languages, ELT Journal 42/15.
Edmondson, W. (2009) Language awareness, in Knapp, K., Seidelhofer, B. &
Widdowson, H., Handbook of Foreign Language Communication and Learning, 163-‐
190, London: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fairclough, N. (ed.) (1992) Critical Language Awareness, London: Longman Fairclough, N. (ed.) (1995) Critical discourse analysis, the critical study of language, London: Longman.
Flynn, S., Foley, C. and Vinnitskaya I. (2004) The Cumulative-‐Enhancement model for language acquisition: comparing adults’ and childrens’ patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses, The International Journal of Multilingualism 1, 1: 13-‐16.
Fortune, T. & Tedick, D. (2008) (eds.) Pathways to Multilingualism; evolving perspectives on immersion education, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Foursha, C. and Nicoladis, E. (2011) Early emergence of syntactic awareness and cross-‐linguistic influence in bilingual children’s judgments, International Journal of Bilingualism, 15, 4: 521-‐534.
Francis, N. (2004) Nonlinear processing as a comprehension strategy: A proposed typology for the study of bilingual children’s self-‐corrections of oral reading miscues, Language Awareness, 13: 17-‐33.
Gajo, L. (2007) Linguistic knowledge and subject knowledge: How does
bilingualism contribute to subject development, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10,5.
Genesee, F. (2008) Dual language in the global village, 28-‐49, in Fortune, T. &
Tedick, D. (eds.) Pathways to Multilingualism; evolving perspectives on immersion education, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Haritos, C. (2005) The language ecology of bilingual memory, Academic Exchange Quarterly 9, 3: 77-‐82.
Harris, V. and Grenfell, M. (2004) Language learning strategies: A case for cross-‐
curricular collaboration, Language Awareness 13: 2.: 116-‐130.
Hawkins, E. (1999) Foreign language study and language awareness, Language Awareness 8:3-‐4: 124-‐142.
Hernandez, A. E., Dapretto, M., Mazziotta, J., & Bookheimer, S. (2001) Language switching and language representation in Spanish-‐English bilinguals: An MRI study. Neurolmage, 14: 510-‐520.
Horst, M., White,J. and Bell, P. (2010) First and second language knowledge in the language classroom, International Journal of Bilingualism 14, 3: 331-‐349.
Ishiara, N. (2007) Web-‐based curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a foreign language: An explicit awareness-‐raising approach, Language Awareness 16: 1: 21-‐40.
James, C. & Garret, P. The scope of language awareness, in James, C. and Garret, P.
Jessner, U. (1999) Metalinguistic awareness in multilingual speakers: Cognitive aspects of third language learning. Language Awareness 8,3/4: 201-‐209.
Jiménez, R.,García,G., Pearson, D. (1995) Three Children, Two Languages, and Strategic Reading: Case Studies in Bilingual/Monolingual Reading, American Educational Research Journal, 32, 1 :67-‐97.
Johnson, R. (1997) The Hong Kong immersion system: Late immersion under stress. In Johnson, R. and Swain, M. (Eds.) Immersion Education: International Perspectives (p.167-‐170) Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Jordá, M. (2005) Pragmatic production of third language learners of English: A focus on request acts modifiers, International Journal of Multilingualism 2,2: 84-‐
104.
Kemp, C. (2007) Strategic Processing in Grammar Learning: Do multilinguals use more strategies?. International Journal of Multilingualism, 4, 4.
Kharkhurin, A. (2007) The role of cross-‐linguistic and cross-‐cultural experiences in bilingual’s divergent thinking, in Kecskes I. and Albertazzi L. (eds.) Cognitive Aspects of Bilingualism, pp.175-‐210, Dordrecht: Springer.
Kharkhurin, A. (2008) The effect of linguistic proficiency, age of second language acquisition, and length of exposure to a new cultural environment on bilinguals’
divergent thinking, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11,2: 225-‐243.
Kramsch, C. (2010) The Multilingual Subject, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lagrou, E., Hartsuiker, R. and Duyck, W. (2011) Knowledge of a second language influences auditory word recognition in the native language, Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 37, 4: 952-‐965.
Lasagabaster, D. (2009) The implementation of CLIL and attitudes towards trilingualism, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 157: 23-‐44.
Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra J. (2009) Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes, International CLIL Research Journal 1,2: 4-‐17.
Le Pichon, E., de Swart, H., Vorstman, J. and van der Bergh, H. (2010) Influence of the context of learning a language on the strategic competence of children, International Journal of Bilingualism, 14, 4: 447-‐465.
Lin, A. & Man E (2009) Bilingual Education: Southeast Asian Perspectives, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Long, M. and Robinson, P. (1998) Focus on form: Theory, research and practice" in C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.) Focus on Form in Classroom Language Acquisition, pp. 15-‐41, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. and Moore, P. (2010) The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: key findings from the Andalusian sections evaluation report, Applied Linguistics 31: 418-‐442.
Llinares,A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012) The Role of Language in CLIL, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Llurda, E. (2010) A review of Teacher Language Awareness, Language Awareness, Vol. 19:4.
Luk, G., de sa, E., and Bialystock, E. (2011) is there a relation between the onset age of bilingualism and enhancement of cognitive control? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14: 588-‐595.
Marcaro, E. (2005) Code-‐switching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In Lurda, E. (ed.) Non-‐native Language Teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession,63-‐84) New York: Springer.
Marsh, D. (2002) CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension: Actions, Trends &
Foresight Potential. Brussels: European Commission.
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D. and Frigols-‐Martin, M. (2010) The European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education, Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML).
Marsh,H, Hau,K-‐T., Kong, C-‐K. (2000) late immersion and language of instruction in Hong Kong high schools: achievement growth in language and non-‐language subjects, Harvard Educational Review, 70: 302-‐346.
Mehisto, P. (2008) CLIL counterweights: recognizing and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL, International CLIL Research Journal, 1,1.
Mehisto, P. (2011) Navigating Management and Pedagogical Complexities in Bilingual Education: An Estonian case study. PhD thesis. London: University of London.
Mehisto, P. (2012) Excellence in Bilingual Education: A Guide for School Principals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Méndez Garci, M. & Pavón Vázquez, V. (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 a, 1-‐20.
Mercer, N. & Barnes, D. (2007) English as a classroom language, in Mercer, N., Swann, J. & Mayor, B. Learning English, London: Routledge.
Mercer, N. and Dawes, L. (2008) The value of exploratory talk, in Mercer, N. &
Hodgkinson, S. (eds) Exploring Talk in Schools, 55-‐71, London: Sage.
Miller, A. and Keenan, K. (2011) Understanding the centrality deficit: Insight from foreign language learners, Memory and Cognition, 39: 873-‐883.
Montague, N. S. (1997) Critical Components for Dual Language Programs, Bilingual Research Journal, 21(4): 334-‐342.
Moore, D. (2006) Plurilingualism and strategic competence in context, International Journal of Multilingualism, 3, 2: 125-‐138.
Navés, T. and Victori, M. (2010) CLIL in Catalonia: an overview of research studies, in Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and Lasagabaster, D. (eds.) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training, pp.30-‐54, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing Navés, T. (2011) The promising benefits of integrating content and language for EFL writing and overall EFL proficiency, in Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J. and
Navés, T. and Victori, M. (2010) CLIL in Catalonia: an overview of research studies, in Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and Lasagabaster, D. (eds.) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training, pp.30-‐54, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing Navés, T. (2011) The promising benefits of integrating content and language for EFL writing and overall EFL proficiency, in Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J. and