Abstract
Classroom codeswitching in foreign language teaching is still a controversial issue whose status as a
tool of both despair and desire continues to be hotly debated. As the teaching of CLIL is, by
definition, concerned with the learning of a foreign language, one would expect the value of
codeswitching to constitute an important part in CLIL research. This article sets out to argue that the
use of the majority language in CLIL by teachers follows an educationally principled approach. It is
expressed within an instructive and regulative register, motivated by behavioural, classroom and task
management, and knowledge scaffolding considerations. Through a comparative data coding process
using MAXQDA, several dimensions of codeswitching were identified and elaborated on. These
dimensions included principledness, contextualisation, conflictuality, domain sensibility, linguistic
deficit awareness, language learning and knowledge construction support, as well as affectivity.
Taking this complex web as a reference point, the paper ends proposing six theses on codeswitching
and recommending its relevance to CLIL teacher training.
Keywords: CLIL, codeswitching, instructive register, regulative register, educational principles
Introduction
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
is a balanced approach for the learning of content
and a foreign language. Its effectiveness and usefulness for both has been the subject of countless
publications in the last several years (Breidbach & Viebrock, 2013; Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2007; Lyster,
2008; Llinares, Morton & Whittaker, 2012; Nikula, Dalton-Puffer & Llinares, 2013). Although the
learning of subject content is also marked by curricular and educational controversies within
different national curricular requirements (Bosch & Gascon, 2006; Yerrick & Roth, 2005), the use of
the foreign language and any other language as a vehicle for this input, as well as any pedagogical
implications thereof, appears under-researched, and in dire need of principles (Dalton-Puffer, 2011).
One major contentious issue can be traced to the foreign language's monolingual habitus in the
learning of content (Lasagabaster, 2013). This appears to be grounded in the mainstream foreign
language learning and research tradition which sees comprehensible input (Krashen & Terell, 1992),
negotiation of meaning in the foreign language (Long & Doughty, 2011), and above all, the amount of
exposure as paramount for promoting effective language learning in the classroom (Mitchell, 2011).
Within these parameters only scant space is given to the learners' majority language, which is treated
as a last-ditch tool for difficult and critical classroom situations and only to be used sparsely and
judiciously 1(Richards & Rodgers, 2002).
However, recent research within a cognitivist paradigm (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009; Cook , 2010;
Macaro, 2014), and in particular in socio-cognitive and dynamic systems language learning
approaches (Atkinson, 2011; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), is beginning to shed doubt on a
mostly deficit role of the majority language in foreign language learning . A more radical stance
towards a neatly compartmentalised monolingual approach in foreign language learning is taken by
translanguaging and multilingual representatives which aim for the use of multiple languages to
achieve the stated aims. In these approaches, the language practices of classroom participants are
meant to confront and question linguistic inequality and increase participants’ multilingual symbolic
capital (Garcia & Wei, 2014; Grenfell, 2011, Kramsch, 2009).
“CLIL as a dual focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning
and teaching of both content and language" (Marsh, 2009, p. vii) has also been slowly but steadily on
1
When authors used the word mother tongue into was not changed into majority language. Otherwise
majority language was preferred by the researcher to mother tongue. As a matter of fact there were often
representatives of many different mother tongues present in the classrooms in this study.
1
the rise in Austrian classrooms. The legislative background for this was provided by the so-called
"foreign language offensive”, which was started in the early 1990s by the Austrian Ministry of
Education. Austria has a dual qualification system, in which every teacher is trained for at least two
subjects which has led to a high level of flexibility in CLIL programs allowing individual schools to set
up their tailor-made projects (Gierlinger, 2002). Working as a teacher, researcher, and teacher
educator within this context I became increasingly intrigued by the complex roles and relationships
between the languages involved in this learning environment. In particular, the apparently
ambivalent role of codeswitching as a tool of help or hindrance caught my interest and led me to
investigate into the following questions:
1. When does codeswitching in CLIL teacher talk occur and what is its role?
2. Is there a pedagogical orientation in teachers' codeswitching in CLIL?
3. Is codeswitching only carried out haphazardly and in an unprincipled manner?
4. Does codeswitching primarily operate as an emergency tool with a deficit habitus?
The role of language in schooling
As this article focuses on code switching and the specific roles of the teacher’s L1 for the process of
learning in the CLIL classroom, a brief discussion of the relationship between language and content
knowledge seems warranted. A rapidly growing number of educational linguists, psychologists, and
didacticians are beginning to agree that the learning of subject matter language is intricately
intertwined with the learning of its content. Therefore, content teaching practically always is
language teaching, and school subjects are a system of discursive practices and genres (BeckerMrotzek, Schramm, Thürmann, & Vollmer, 2013; Christie & Martin, 2007; Gogolin, Lange, Michel, &
Reich, 2013; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2013; Schleppegrell, 2004; Van Lier, 2004; Yerrick & Roth,
2005). It’s thus not possible, for instance, to do science using ordinary language, as learners need to
become familiar with the comprehensiveness, depth and precision of scientific taxonomies relative
to everyday taxonomies (Christie & Martin, 2007).
Dealing with this intricate relationship between content and language is a methodological
challenge and major teaching goal for all teachers (Hallet, 2013; Llinares & Whittaker, 2009; Martin,
2007; Scarcella, 2003; Vollmer & Thürmann, 2013, p. 44). As Gottlieb & Ernst-Slavit (2014, p. 83) put
it, “students cannot engage in complex academic practices and accumulate deep content area
knowledge if they do not have the linguistic tools for thinking, processing, participating, and,
ultimately learning during content area instruction” 2. Arguably for CLIL, the choice and variety of
scaffolding measures for mediating these linguistic tools in the CLIL classroom will be strongly
influenced by three factors, firstly, the learner’s and teacher’s general and genre specific target
language competence. Secondly, her subject specific didactic repertoire and thirdly, her metalinguistic and foreign language didactic repertoire. All of which will influence and guide a teacher’s
codeswitching behaviour in the CLIL classroom. However, in the present study the data gathered
showed that methodologically teachers only followed an immersive approach with minimal explicit
foreign language interventions. As the focus of this naturalistic classroom research study (Gass,
Schachter, & Mackey, 2011) was on the description and classification of teachers’ actual code
switching behaviour, respectively their motivation for this, their, possibly theoretically desireable,
foreign language intervention measures were not part of the scope and intention of this study.
Use of the L1 in the L2 classroom
The use of the majority language for codeswitching in the CLIL classroom cannot be appraised
properly without giving attention to its role in the foreign language learning context. Since the
advent of communicative language teaching and its present status of orthodoxy in mainstream
language teaching, the use of the majority language in the foreign language classroom has proved
controversial. Ellis & Shintani (2014) consider this to be due to the dominance of monolingual
2
I am very grateful to an anonymous reviewer who made me consider the role of codeswitching within the
broader picture of the language of schooling more carefully.
2
teaching since the beginning of the 20th century. Turnbull & Dailey-O'Cain (2009: 206) notice that
the theoretical and empirical support for exclusive target language use has led governments,
language school administrators, teacher educators, publishing houses, and teachers to accept
exclusive target language use in both second and foreign language learning and teaching as best
practice which has reached, in their words, hegemonic practice. Butzkamm (2003: 29), for example,
states that “at present the official guidelines in many countries recommend that lessons be planned
to be as monolingual as possible drawing on the mother tongue only when difficulties arise”.
Butzkamm & Caldwell (2009: 13) call it “the mother tongue taboo, which has been, without
justification of any substance, the perceived didactical correctness for so many years and in so many
countries". This is also reflected in the general literature on communicative language teaching,
especially in a large number of published teacher guides, where, according to Ellis & Shintani (2014),
language teaching activities are supposed to be carried out almost entirely in the target language.
Following this, codeswitching is regarded by many teachers as a response to the undesirable
constraints of the classroom that need to be overcome as quickly as possible, or at best, is to be used
like a transit room on a journey to another country.
Contrary to this mainstream perception, more and more SLA and FLL researchers identify the
majority language as a vital resource, rather than a liability, in the learning of any other language
(Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009; Cook, 2010; Macaro, 2014; Saville-Troike, 2006; Turnbull & DaileyO'Cain, 2009). Ellis & Shintani (2014, p. 233) note that “in recent years, advocacy of L1 use has grown
in strength and it is now clear that the pendulum has swung firmly in its favour at least in applied
linguistics” This has lead educational linguists, noteably Macaro (2014), to call for a pedagogy of
codeswitching based on a theory of optimal L1 use for foreign language learning. He posits that
the question of whether the first language (L1) should be used in the oral
interaction or the written materials of second or foreign language (L2)
classrooms is probably the most fundamental question facing second language
acquisition (SLA) researchers, language teachers and policymakers in this
second decade of the 21st century. (p. 10)
Increasing scholarly interest in this area has also resulted in a number of studies (Levine, 2011) trying
to shed light on the functional purposes of teachers’ L1 use in the classroom. The functions identified
for teachers’ codeswitching in several studies show remarkable similarities which, following systemic
functional linguistics, can be attributed to a regulative or an instructive register (Christie, 2002;
Llinares & Whittaker, 2009). The former being the discourse to allow teachers and students to
manage and organise the classroom’s social world, the latter being the classroom talk through which
the academic content and skills being learnt are communicated.
When splitting writers’ lists of functions for codeswitching into three broad categories, a small
number of “trigger situations” can be noticed. Category one, behaviour management, typically
includes the building of rapport with a special emphasis on decreasing language anxiety (MacIntyre &
Gregersen, 2012), and maintaining discipline in the classroom. Category two, classroom and task
management, features highly in any administrative classroom talk and (mostly) complex task
instructions. Category three, concept management-which refers to the actual learning taking placelists predominantly comprehension problems, grammar instruction, and time-saving issues. The
obvious prevalence of foreign language teachers to use the majority language in particular contexts
leads Levine (2011) to maintain that the majority language needs to be reappraised as the unmarked
code or default choice for several key contexts in the classroom. Nevertheless, Ellis & Shintani (2014:
233) sound a note of warning on the prevailing controversy by stating, “the arguments, it should be
noted, are for the most part theoretical in nature, representing opinion and belief, rather than
empirically based findings. It is for this reason that the whole issue of the use of the L1 has become
3
so contentious”. For them, the central question SLA researchers should ask is, “whether L1 use in the
classroom facilitates L2 acquisition”.
CLIL and codeswitching
Taking this discussion into the CLIL classroom, three specifics need to be considered. Firstly, CLIL
thrives on its diversity and contextuality (Perez-Canado, 2011). For example, Coyle (2007) lists more
than 200 different types of CLIL programs based on such variables as compulsory status, intensity,
age of onset, starting linguistic level, or duration. Recently, however, an increasing number of CLIL
researchers have tried to systematise and theorise this disparate, mostly grassroots, and highly
atheoretical phenomenon by establishing more general CLIL practices and principles, (Dalton-Puffer,
2011; De Graaf, Koopman, Anikina, & Westhof, 2007; Georgiou, 2012; Mehisto, Frigols , & Marsh,
2008).
Secondly, CLIL lessons are, by their very nature, subject-content driven learning environments
(Dalton-Puffer, 2011). This inevitably has an effect on teachers’ habitus, self-perception and identity,
language choice, and methodology.
Thirdly, the use of the majority language – and in more progressive contexts (Canagarajah, 2013;
Garcia & Wei, 2014), the use of all language resources – as a methodological resource tool - has
always formed part of a general CLIL philosophy by its main representatives. There may be some
variation in the actual amount of L1 implementation, for example, some theoreticians consider
twenty-five percent to be appropriate, but most agree on the non-target language’s legitimate space
in the CLIL classroom (Costa & D'Angelo, 2011; Coyle, Hood , & Marsh, 2010; Dalton-Puffer, 2011).
However, there seems to be far less agreement about the actual methodological mediation and
ownership of this space.
Given this complex web, CLIL teachers’ codeswitching beliefs and practices would suggest an
important field of study. However, contrary to this, the number of studies addressing CLIL teachers’
codeswitching use are thin on the ground and mostly difficult to compare (Coonan, 2007; Costa,
2011; Grandinetti, Langellotti, & Ting, 2013; Hüttner, Dalton-Puffer, & Smit, 2013; Lasagabaster,
2013; Llinares & Whittaker, 2009; Mendez Garcia & Pavon Vazquez, 2012; Nikula, 2010; Wannagat,
2007; Viebrock, 2012).
An overview reveals the following features. Firstly, the majority of the studies base teachers’ beliefs
on codeswitching on qualitative interviews or questionnaires without any reference to classroom
data, and therefore may run the risk of presenting a perspective whose results do not adequately
portray the complexity of the classroom codeswitching context (Hüttner & Dalton-Puffer, 2013;
Lasagabaster, 2013; Mendez Garcia & Pavon Vazquez, 2012; Viebrock, 2012). Secondly, some studies,
although based on a mixed-method approach, investigate teachers’ language without making their
codeswitching a major issue (Nikula, 2010). Thirdly, others - although providing a considerable
amount of codeswitching incidents - decline any deeper or systematic significance to this
phenomenon (Grandinetti, Langellotti, & Ting, 2013).
In table 1, the two studies that deal explicitly with the functions of teachers’ codeswitching in CLIL
present the following categories which are focused through the instructive and regulative classroom
registers.
4
Table 1: Functions of teacher L1 use in the CLIL classroom
Register
Lasagabaster
Mendez Garcia
(2013)
& Pavon
Vazquez, (2012)
Instructive
To help students’
To help
understanding
students
understand
complex ideas
and notions
Instructive
To make L1 and L2
To make cross
comparisons
linguistic
comparisons
Regulative
To boost debate
To stimulate
the learning of
both language
and content
Regulative
To feel comfortable To tell
in the CLIL class
anecdotes
Regulative
To deal with
To use routine
disciplinary issues
language
Although Lasagabaster (2013:17) concludes that CLIL teachers’ codeswitching is implemented with
little systematic reflection on teachers’ everyday practices, the overall similarity of characteristics in
teachers’ codeswitching in CLIL already suggests that this may be more than just a haphazard and
incidental phenomenon.
Context and design of the study
This longitudinal qualitative study, which was carried out in school year 2011-2013 tried to
investigate into CLIL teachers' codeswitching behaviour. Data was gathered through naturalistic
classroom research (Gass, Schachter, & Mackey, 2011) from four non-selective lower secondary
comprehensive school classes (14- to 15-year olds) and one selective3 (16- to 17-year olds ) upper
secondary grammar school class, where CLIL was taught in modular projects. The projects were
selected on a highly individualistic and experiential level. Nevertheless, they followed certain criteria
such as internationality versus local contexts, the availability of appropriate materials or cognitive
complexity. The subjects covered were chemistry, geography (twice), history and psychology (upper
secondary level). The lesson durations were bi-weekly, with each lesson lasting fifty minutes. And,
unlike in other European countries, there were no regulations or recommendations for the amount
of time to be used in the target language. While the majority language was German, pupils’ mother
tongues included, apart from German, Albanian, Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, Romanian, Serbo-CroatBosnian (SCB), Tagalog, and Turkish. Initially, classes were selected for the same age range and a nonelitist approach towards CLIL, but for practicality and data richness purposes, a more elitist and
slightly older class was added.
Now consider table 2, which displays teachers’ professional profiles:
3
Austria has a two tiered educational system where students at the age of 10 are (self) selected into a more
academically focused branch (grammar school) and a more vocationally focused branch (comprehensive
schools). This selection process is mostly affected by learners' marks in primary education.
5
Table 2: Teachers’ professional profiles
Teachers
Profile
Dimensions
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Age
42
30
48
41
40
Teaching
experience
16 years
3 years
26 years
20 years
15 years
QTS
(Qualified
Teacher
Status)


•

•
CEFR levels
C2
C1
B1+
C2
B2/C1
Previous
CLIL
experience
CLIL
training
15 - years
2 - years
None
8 - years
None
None
None
None
European CLIL course
2012
University CLILCourse
6
English
Philosophy
Psychology
•
English
Geography
•
•


Physical sciences:
Physics,
Chemistry
Mathematics
Geometrical Arts
English
Geography


History
German
These profiles can be summed up in the following way: All of the teachers, except for one, were very
experienced subject teachers, and were highly recommended by their principals for their teaching
excellence. Three of them were also English language specialists with a considerable amount of CLIL
experience, whereas the two subject specialists only had just started with CLIL. None of them had
undergone any lengthier CLIL training. Apart from T1, all of the teachers taught in non-selective
comprehensive schools, spanning an age range from 10 to 15 years. T1 taught in a so-called grammar
school (AHS) with an age range from 10- to 18-years old. Their target language competence was not
determined through any official assessments but rated on a bona fide basis by the author with
respect to the classroom observations and their language learning background.
Research methodology
The study employed a combination of semi-structured interviews (Burns & Barnard, 2012), classroom
observations, and stimulated recall reflections. The interviews took place in an open-ended manner
in a non-evaluative environment. Some interviews were carried out immediately after the observed
teacher had left the classroom, which usually forced me to rely on my field notes and memory of
lesson episodes. Some interviews were stimulated by already available transcripts of the lessons or
by questions focused on video sequences. The classroom observation data was gained by filming the
teachers, focusing on their codeswitching.
All in all, 864 minutes of semi-structured interviews, 1245 min of video observations, adding up to
2109 minutes of recorded data were transcribed and evaluated (table 3).
Table 3: Transcribed data in minutes
Dimensions
Interviews
CRO
Sum
T1
65
45
110
T2
111
254
365
T3
252
396/39
648
T4
126
165/81
291
T5
310
385
695
Sum
864
1245
2109
Note: T1-5: Teachers; CRO - classroom observation data
This data was qualitatively analysed by using MAXQDA4. The coding system in MAXQDA was partly
pre-defined by previous research, my research questions, but also emerging, following Corbin &
Strauss’s (2008) analytical tools for doing grounded research through several comparative data
sessions and theoretical samplings. In this process of constant comparison and revision, a state of
theoretical saturation (Corbin & Strauss, 2008: 263) was achieved which allowed a confident
evaluation of the questions and hypotheses raised for this study. In the classroom data any incident
where teachers switched from the target language English into their mother tongue AustrianGerman was coded and categorised in MAXQDA.
Categorising the data
Taking the regulative and instructive registers as major guiding lines for the typical pedagogic
discourse in the classroom (Christie, 2002) the following categories appeared to be explanatory
enough to allow a satisfactory qualitative interpretation of the research data.
The regulative codeswitching data was split into:
1. Classroom and task management codeswitching: CTM. This was defined as any majority
language intervention by the teacher that supported the setting up of the learning
environment. It specifically included: giving instructions, making announcements, opening
and closing lessons, regulating floor taking, homework reminders, passing out hand outs, etc.
4
MAXQDA is a professional software for qualitative and mixed methods data analysis, www.maxqda.com
7
2. Behaviour management codeswitching: BM. This comprised any majority language
intervention by the teacher for interpersonal and rapport-building purposes. Typical
examples included: checking on pupils’ behaviour, telling jokes, anecdotes or any other
(language) anxiety reducing measure, encouraging remarks, etc.
Instructive classroom codeswitching following Llinares, Morton, & Whittaker (2012) and Nikula,
Dalton-Puffer, & Llinares (2013) was broken down into three major categories:
1. Content focused codeswitching: CF. This category represented any codeswitching by
teachers to ensure the conceptual understanding and development of subject knowledge.
2. Word focused codeswitching: WF. This was understood as a bridging category between
language learning and conceptual development. Typical examples included teachers’ quick
translation of any expected lexical problem.
3. Deficit focused codeswitching: DF. This category represented any codeswitching by teachers
that dealt with their linguistic shortcomings. Typical examples included the teacher’s
acknowledgement of her ignorance preceded by utterances such as “I don’t know the English
word for Dreibein (tripod)” and/or by body language and hesitation markers that indicated a
(linguistic) problem.
In the same vein, any comment in teachers’ reflections pertaining to the categories above was coded
accordingly.
Discussion 1: Codeswitching for regulative purposes
Teachers’ classroom codeswitching for regulative purposes fell between two broad categories either
dealing with classroom and task management or with behaviour management. A statistical
breakdown of all the incidences in the classroom coded for regulative codeswitching showed that
classroom and task management (CTM) covered about 61 % of the incidences, whereas behaviour
management (BM) codeswitching was coded in 39% of all the occurrences.
Since the number of classes observed with respect to the individual teachers varied considerably, any
codeswitching comparison between teachers was restricted to teachers T3 and T5 whose number of
lessons observed was almost the same (see table 3). With these two teachers, the amount of CTM
codings varied considerably. For example, T5 initiated more than eight times the number of
classroom and task management incidents than T3 (65/08). On the other hand, regarding
behavioural management incidents, both teachers showed almost exactly the same number of
codeswitching occurrences (23/22). Their length and complexity, however, differed considerably
from short single turns to multiple exchanges involving several participants (extract 1). Furthermore,
there was wide variation concerning the other teachers, as hardly any regulative codeswitching
incidents appeared in their data.
Nevertheless, a clean separation between classroom and task management (CTM), and behaviour
management (BM) appeared to be difficult on various occasions, as these two codings were often
closely intertwined. For example, a teacher’s instruction was followed by a behavioural remark,
continued by further instructions, followed by another behavioural remark and concluded by the
final instructions. It is possible for the entire exchange to take place in one target language piece or
to be broken up in L2 – L1 – L2 framing patterns. The following exchange in which the teacher
introduced an internet quiz, is representative of this discourse pattern5.
5
The translations of the codeswitchings tried to stay as closely to the original as possible and were done by the
author and put in square brackets [translation]. For better readability the whole exchanges were italicised and
8
Extract 1:
T5: okay, and at the bottom of this page you have got a different kind of quiz, (…), first of all, you
have just to listen, you don't have to do anything you, okay
P1: du musst klicken! [you have to click on it]
T: könnt ihr bitte auf, könnt ihr bitte zuhören, ihr braucht, ihr braucht jetzt nichts tun, ok ihr
braucht nichts tun, ihr braucht nur zuhören, [can you stop this, you don’t need to do anything, just
listen]
P2: (ui)
T: das ist halt nicht besonders intelligent, gelt, das stört mich, und dann entscheidet ihr euch für
einen Kandidaten [that’s not very intelligent, I don’t like this, and then you go for a candidate]
P3: Obama
T: was weiss ich, [whatever]
P4: Romney
T: und dann gibt es die Fragen und dann muss man immer [and then there are questions, and then
you have to] and here you have to, to decide which answer is right, and if your answer is right your
candidate will do a step in front of you, okay, so I would say try this quiz it's quite useful
Classroom and task management codeswitching
Classroom and task management codeswitching was used for general administrative
announcements: opening and closing lesson turns, issuing homework, regulating floor taking, giving
instructions for carrying out an activity, or for the use of technical tools and seating or learning
arrangements. As mentioned above, it was often placed in a framing or sandwich pattern (L2 – L1 –
L2). However, sometimes there were also appeals by students to the teacher for CTM. Notice how in
extract 2, the teacher begins in English, only to be interrupted by a student’s request for German,
which he acknowledges by immediately switching to the L1.
Extract 2:
T3: listen to me please, I give you some explanations, what you do in the first time is, choose, (…)
P: können sie das auf Deutsch sagen? [can you say this in German?]
T: wir haben sechs Materialien her außen die wir erst besprochen haben, (…) [we have six materials
here that we talked about,] (…)
Whilst clarifying regulative issues appeared to be the primary motive for codeswitching in these
instances, many of them may have served the purpose of supporting students’ implicit language
learning. Notice how in extract 3, the instructional remark “work alone” was not only emphasised by
repeating the keyword “important” three times and using a near-synonym “very necessary”, but also
that its translation “wichtig” was provided. Almost all of teacher 3’s and roughly 50% of teacher 5’s
CTM codeswitching extracts exhibited characteristics of repetition, attention, slower rate of delivery,
paraphrasing, all of which may help acquiring new words (Lightbown & Spada, 2006).
Extract 3:
the codeswitchings printed in bold. Seemingly redundant remarks such as repetitions, hesitation markers,
digressions, etc. were deleted from the quotes which is indicated by three dots in round brackets (…).
9
T3: (…) so it is, stop it is very necessary that you work alone, wichtig, important, it's important, it's
very important to work alone now for three minutes
This analysis of teachers’ classroom data raised the question for the reasons that teachers gave in
their reflective comments for codeswitching in CTM situations. T1 and T4, the most “foreign
language” competent teachers, agreed on using the L1 only on rare occasions of problematic cases of
incomprehension. This concurs fittingly with a zero occurrence of CTM codeswitching in their data,
which is however far smaller than T3/5’s sample. Notwithstanding any likely language problem, T3/5
did not attribute their higher use of codeswitching to any linguistic deficits, but, instead, articulated
other specific reasons for their behaviour. Both mentioned time pressure and technical classroom
aspects, such as problems with the computer or projector, being a primary driving force for their
codeswitching. Furthermore, T3 mentioned subject-specific reasons related to chemical experiments.
This included the involvement of hazardous materials and very specific tools (labelled in the L1) for
which he had to ensure that instructions were clearly understood and followed. However, contrary
to teachers’ general supportive behaviour for language learning in their reflections, this was not
mentioned as an explicit motive for any CTM codeswitching.
The general picture emerging from the CTM codeswitching data shows the following features:



A high variability of codeswitching within the teachers was noticeable. For example, while
three teachers didn’t display any codeswitching at all, the two non-language specialists
initiated 100% of the incidents, with T5 being involved in about 90% of the codeswitching
extracts.
Despite the actual differences in the classroom data, all teachers emphasised in their
reflections to use codeswitching if classroom management language or instructions in the
target language were considered to be “problematic, difficult, personal, time-consuming, or
not absolutely watertight and fool proof in potentially hazardous situations”.
The codeswitching was typically wrapped into an L2 – L1 – L2 sandwich pattern that
appeared to have potential for language learning.
Behaviour management codeswitching
This chapter will investigate into the second major regulative register, behaviour management.
Behaviour management codeswitching was used for incidents considered by the teachers to be
disruptive to the on-going teaching and learning process. Eventually, it was meant to lead to creating
a positive learning environment. BM was always teacher-initiated, had a tendency to show highly
emotive features through increased voice and higher pitch level, expressive body language, and even
when focused on a single student, was usually addressed to the whole class. Very often it was
introduced in the target language but quickly repeated with stronger discursive force in the majority
language and followed by the target language when the “issue” seemed to have been successfully
settled. Extract 4 is a typical example where the teacher (after a series of disruptions by this student)
finally decides to send him to the head person.
Extract 4:
T3: please we have to stop our experiments, sit down everybody, (…)
P: (student mockingly) sit down please
T: und wenn ich dich jetzt nochmals ermahnen muss dann werde ich dafür sorgen, dass du
hinausgehst, draußen kannst du (ui) ok? [if I have to reprimand you again I’ll take care that you
leave the classroom, outside you can (ui) ok?] please stop talking now, listen to me (…) (points at
student) go to the headmaster and tell him what you have done
10
Teachers reported choosing the L1 on purpose for reasons of authenticity and forcefulness. In their
comments they emphasised that using the L1 for disciplinary purposes was “more energetic and
expressive” (T4), whereas using the TL was not “authentic or somewhat artificial” (T5). This appeared
to be a sentiment voiced by all teachers in their reflective comments.
Furthermore, notice the apparent cognitive overload in extract 5 where the teacher’s complaint of
being unable to concentrate because of students’ constant chatting lead to codeswitching. This was
expressed in a high pitched voice through a very strong colloquial expression “die Quatscherei, die
geht mir auf den Keks” that definitely left the register of the usual scholarly detachment and showed
the teacher’s “raw” feelings at this moment.
Extract 5:
T3: so stop, nein, das ist mir jetzt extrem wichtig und da will ich dass alle zuhören und die
Quatscherei da, die geht mir auf den Keks, ja die ganze Zeit, ich kann mich nicht konzentrieren weil
weil ich da immer den Lärm hinter mir habe, “ [stop, no, that is extremely important for me and I
want you all to listen, and all that chatting is getting on my nerves, yes the whole time, I can't
concentrate because there is always this noise behind me]
Also note how in extract 6, the teacher, probably because of a certain affective overload, was
suddenly lost for words.
Extract 6:
"(Teacher turns towards a chatty group of boys) and you are too loud for me and I will get very angry
now (raises his voice considerably) and will stop everything, I'm not interested in being angry and,
and (.) (.) have to (.) (.) I don't know the words, ich glaube nicht dass du so mit deiner Gruppe
arbeiten kannst und das bringt vor allem nichts, (T3). [I don't think that you will be able to work like
this with your group and it is of no use]
This linguistic-affective tension was addressed repeatedly in teachers` reflective comments, such as
the following: “the more disruptive the students are, the more L1 is used by me” (T5), “for
behavioural problems I even use the dialect” (T4), “I can’ take that much disruption in CLIL, it is
wearing me out” (T3) .
Apparently, behaviour management in the classroom and teachers’ codeswitching were strongly
guided on the one hand by an explicit cognitive choice about the mother tongue’s stronger
authoritative and authentic force (see also extract 1). On the other hand, it was also guided by the
speaker’s affective irritation which makes her realise the difficulty of expressing anger in the foreign
language and her lack of anger repertoire and fluency. This concurs fully with research on bilingual
anger management where speakers’ L1 turned out to be the preferred language for expressions of
anger (Dewaele, 2006, p. 146).
Summing up, the highly variable and unforeseeable nature of regulative aspects in classrooms poses
a considerable strain on foreign language teachers’ communicative competence (Swain & Lapkin,
2013). This paired with an intuitive assessment of a lack of linguistic authenticity, especially in
emotionally charged behavioural situations, makes them consciously opt for the majority language.
This powerful guiding principle of linguistic appropriateness is however typically changed as soon as
the trigger situation is over and it is often linguistically softened through an L2-L1-L2 sandwich
pattern. However, the data does not indicate any evidence as to whether this understanding of a
linguistically inappropriate use of the majority language for social and regulative purposes is only a
CLIL phenomenon or can be observed in the EFL classroom as well.
11
Discussion 2: Codeswitching for instructive purposes
Teachers‘ codeswitching for instructive purposes was divided into three categories (table 4). The first
category, concept focused codeswitching (CF), denotes teachers’ explicit and mostly lengthier efforts
to ensure an understanding of the subject content through codeswitching. Category two, word
focused codeswitching (WF), while on the surface motivated by conceptual understanding, can
arguably be considered an intermediary between content comprehension and language learning. Its
frequency of occurrence, consistent formal structure, and potential for language learning seem to
justify an extra category. The third category (DF) deals with teachers’ perceptions of and reactions to
their own linguistic deficits in the CLIL classroom, as triggered by instructive incidents.
Table 4 shows a simple statistical breakdown of all the incidences coded for instructive codeswitching
Table 4: Instructive codeswitching in the classroom observation data.
Register
Coding
Number of
Percentage
occurrences
38
46
32
39
12
15
Instructive
Concept focused codeswitching: CF
Instructive
Word focused codeswitching: WF
Instructive
Language deficit focused codeswitching: DF
Concept focused codeswitching
A closer look at the subcategories for the instructive register revealed two recurring patterns. The
first type was a sequence of: (1) teacher explanation in L2 > (2) comprehension problem noticed6 >
(3) re-explanation of content matter in L1 > (4) continuation of content matter in L2. Type II showed
the same order but after stage 2 reasons for the necessity of codeswitching were given. Typical
statements were: “that’s relatively difficult, so I’ll do it quickly in German (T5); okay, briefly in German
so that everyone will have understood it (T3); Okay, now again, maybe for everybody (T3)”.
Sometimes comprehension and clarification checks such as "do you understand my English or shall I
do it in German?; What does X mean?; Can you explain how that works? " were used as a trigger
point for codeswitching. These turns might just cover the clarification of one word or extend into
lengthier conceptual clarifications. Extract 8 and 9 illustrate this codeswitching behaviour.
Extract 8:
T5: (…) and this, well this, this is the convention (ahm) (points at projector screen), (.) (.) what's the
atmosphere there? Wie wirkt denn das auf euch so eine Convention? [How does such a convention
appear to you?]
Extract 9:
T3: (…) 35 g fat, so we have, we have lost something, because I didn't do it in a very good way but
with 26% we are already near the reality (.) (.) good, kurz auf Deutsch damit wir das auch
verstanden haben [briefly in German so that we (sic) have understood it], (goes on explaining the
problem in German), and the same we do with olives ok, less heat because otherwise I would
destroy the good things
Teachers used codeswitching for instructive purposes in a decidedly purposeful way also supported
by their reflective comments on this issue. Firstly, teachers constantly monitored the complexity of
the comprehension process and acted accordingly. For example, all teachers pointed out an
individual threshold for codeswitching with respect to comprehension problems. While this appeared
to be lower or higher, grounded in the teacher’s overall teaching and learning belief system, they
6
See extract 10 and 11
12
maintained that their “pedagogical feeling” was based, among others, on a close observation of their
students’ body language and linguistic responses, which made them codeswitch or allow their
students to codeswitch (extract 11). Extracts 10 – 11 are representative of this conscious monitoring.
Extract 10:
T3: yes it‘s about my pedagogical feeling when I look at students’ faces,
Extract 11:
T1: yes, I may codeswitch for comprehension or safety purposes but what also happens is that
somebody persistently sticks to German and that‘s okay and I’ll talk back in English and that‘s the
way it is
Furthermore, teachers repeatedly pointed out that their codeswitching behaviour was affected by
their knowledge of students’ language competence, such as “with S. and P. I always stick to English”
(T5) or “with E. I will codeswitch because his English is really low and it is already a challenge for him
to actually write the words in English” (T1).
Basically, all teachers voiced an overarching commitment towards subject content knowledge. Then,
if that was felt to be at risk, foreign language learning issues played a subordinate role. Even the
language specialists felt very strongly about their content subject role and viewed themselves in CLIL
primarily as subject teachers. Notice in extract 12 the teacher’s straightforward response when being
asked about her role in the CLIL classroom.
Extract 12:
"R: so what are you in CLIL, an EFL teacher or a philosphy and psychology (PuP) teacher?
T1: a PuP teacher”. (R = researcher)
Summing up, the data clearly indicates that teachers carefully and deliberately chose and fine-tuned
their codeswitching for instructive purposes. The major critical points of departure for this behaviour
were:
1. Cognitive complexity of the input and content supremacy: Teachers either anticipated
potential incomprehension for cognitively complex content or monitored students’
responses as perceived through explicit or implicit non-comprehension markers (for
example, body language) and decided to clarify the problem through codeswitching.
2. An appreciation of students’ individual language competence: Teachers used codeswitching
as an individualised scaffolding measure;
3. Time pressure: Teachers used codeswitching to speed up knowledge mediating processes;
Word focused codeswitching
Teachers used word focused codeswitching quite frequently (39%) as a quick comprehension check
based on a comparison of the lexical representations. Any utterance that followed the structure “Y in
German is called/means Z” or “Y is Z” or “It’s Z”, whereby Y stands for the target language word and Z
for its translation, was counted as an exemplar of this category. Another typical patterns was: (1)
teacher mentions keyword > (2) teacher makes quick comprehension check (“clear about the word?;
Do you know Y?; Have you ever heard this expression?”) > (3) teacher provides translation
equivalent. Furthermore, the codeswitching often appears in mid-utterances as a quick L1 translation
check. Extract 13 is a typical example of this technique.
Extract 13:
13
T5: so how do you call these elections at the beginning of the campaign? Campaign means
Wahlkampf ja, how'd you call it?
However, what started off as a quick checkup frequently led into conceptual clarifications through
concept focused codeswitching or explanations in the target language. Extract 14 exemplifies this.
Extract 14:
T5: (…) the candidate was very, very conservative , what does it mean conservative? It is quite similar
to the German expression, ja, what does it mean for you?
P: keine Ahnung [no idea]
T: was heisst denn konservativ auf deutsch? [What‘s conservative in German?]
(Followed by various turns in which the teacher tries to elicit and explain the meaning of conservative
in German)
Extract 13 suggests that the learner does not have any serious conceptual problems, as the German
translation is not followed up by the teacher. On the surface, its main purpose appears to be a quick
clarification check with probably also strengthening the formal linguistic mapping between the two
lexical representations. Although some teachers, for example, advocated a biliterate approach in
which learners should also know the lexical representation of the majority language, especially with
respect to subject specific vocabulary, this never surfaced as a lengthier and preplanned task.
In extract 14, however, the quick translation check ran into immediate conceptual problems as the
learners apparently did not know the meaning of the lexical representations in their L1 either (note
also the discussion on “the language of schooling”). Generally speaking, it appears that any neat
separation between codeswitching with a content focus and codeswitching with a language focus
runs the risk of oversimplifying the complex relationship between content and language learning in
CLIL. For example, the strategy of clarifying expected lexical problems through an immediate
translation is hard to be justified as either being exclusively motivated by purely conceptual or
linguistic reasons. In other words, do teachers provide a translation because they think referring to
the German word may enhance a conceptual understanding of the content or because this might
support the learning of the target language code? The inherent connectedness of language and
content (Nikula, Dalton-Puffer, & Llinares, 2013) poses a tricky problem when using codeswitching as
an explanatory construct for either language learning or conceptual development in CLIL. This
becomes also evident when looking into predictions made by the Revised Hierarchical Model
(Tokowicz, 2013) which maintains that L2 words are strongly connected to their L1 translations,
because the L2 initially relies on L1 for access to meaning. Following this line of argument, it appears
justified to interpret the juxtaposition of L2 and L1 linguistic forms as a category of codeswitching in
its own right, that appears to focus on the surface on content comprehension and conceptual
strengthening, but may implicitely also further the lexical acquisition of the target language word.
Summing up, this codeswitching checkup played an important feedback role for the teacher in
assuring the understanding of subject content. Furthermore, this classroom data is thin on the
ground with respect to any explicit language work. As mentioned earlier, teachers voiced an implicit
and immersive attitude towards language learning in their CLIL classes which resulted in an almost
unanimous rejection of doing deliberate vocabulary work. T1 sums up the general attitude towards
more language focused codeswitching, “of course they have to learn technical terms but that is not
any focused vocabulary work, it is just the German translation so that one knows it when one needs
it”.
14
Language deficit focused codeswitching
The third area for teachers’ instructive codeswitching dealt with their own linguistic shortcomings.
These incidents were typically preceded by various hesitation markers, short pauses, an "I do not
know this" body language, and/or even open appeals for help. As this pattern exclusively appeared in
the non-linguist specialist classroom, it was often preceded or followed by remarks emphasising the
teacher's status as a "non-language teacher". However, to show the complexity and discourse
potential of these incidents, let’s take a closer look at a more extended example.
Extract 15:
T3: yes and this is what we have in the lab usually a filter, (ahm) and some (ahm), (ahm), (ahm), (.)
(shows a funnel, body language shows uncertainty)
S: Trichter [funnel]
T: Trichter, [funnel] and what we have to do with the round filter is to (.) (folds it)
P: knick [fold] it
PP: knicking [folding]
T: knicking, [folding] thank you for the word, I do not know if it's right but it sounds good
S: it's fold
SS: knicking
S: you fold it
T: I fold it
S: knicking (laughter)
T: many times and then I can make it for our Trichter, [funnel] shall we try to find the word (walks
over to his laptop) I have opened my dictionary, what's the word for Trichter, (types it into his
laptop), and ahm (.) funnel, it's the word funnel, it's for me (writes it down on the board), (14:40 16:10)
In this incident, the teacher started by eliciting from students a lab procedure which involved
separating and purifying mixed substances such as dirty and salty water. While trying to set up this
procedure, various hesitation markers, short pauses, and an obvious "I don't know" body language,
accompanied by showing the object to the students, clearly indicated a language problem which
prompted a student to provide the L1 word "Trichter”. The teacher picked it up without any
comment or hesitation and continued presenting and describing what he needed to do with it. While
folding the paper, he signaled again visually and linguistically (but without codeswitching) a problem
with the desired word "fold/bend". This prompted a student to use the compensatory strategy of
foreignising to provide him with the word "knick” which originates from the Germanic word
"knicken” (bend). This was immediately taken up by other learners and also by the teacher, even
though, another student voiced her doubts by suggesting the correct word "fold". This was then
repeated and accepted by the teacher who continued his demonstration, and who also quickly
became aware that his first problem of the naming of the object had not yet been solved. Although
he still codeswitched and mentioned the German word, he simultaneously provided a successful
language learning model by using his laptop to look up the word in an Internet dictionary
(www.leo.org). The students could follow this, as his computer was linked to the overhead projector.
He then decided to make this term even more salient by repeating it, writing it on the board, and
telling them to look for it in their handouts. The turns overlapped throughout this learning
conversation and it did not take longer than 90 seconds.
The whole episode has been presented and described in more detail as it is believed to be
representative of the rich and joint learning potential of codeswitching in CLIL in which the teacher
was the subject knowledge facilitator while concurrently acting as a foreign language learning model.
15
A similar pattern showed the teachers’ struggle for a target expression, which was indicated by
pauses and repeated hesitation markers, as shown above. The codeswitching was initiated by the
student’s “generous offer”.
Extract 16:
T3: (…) there exists another bad story because you know India, in India its ah ah ah (.) (.) (.)
S: sie können es auf Deutsch sagen wenn sie wollen [you can speak German if you like]
T: ja I know, in Indien ist es üblich wenn ein Mädchen verheiratet wird (…) [In India it is common
when a girl gets married]
Although the data analysis does not allow any hard or empirical conclusions regarding the intake
efficiency of these incidents, the videos show high energy arousal and attention (the number of
participants involved, their body language, and intensity of exchanges) as well as a high repetition of
the target word. Since these are considered strong enabling conditions for learning, and the learning
of words in particular (Ellis, 2013; Laufer, 2013; Laufer & Nation, 2012; MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012)
incidents like this may actually represent rich learning opportunities that also allow for a more
democratic learning climate in CLIL as compared to both the foreign language and regular subject
classroom.
All in all, these cooperative learning incidents triggered by codeswitching were relatively rare, only
occurred in the non-language specialist data, and were almost exclusively initiated by one teacher.
Furthermore, while the classroom observation examples do not show any openly expressed
examples of linguistic shortcomings by the teachers, their reflections reveal a far less confident
picture. For example, all teachers addressed the deficit metaphor "I’m not a native speaker". This
was expressed by stating that one’s L2 use may be "different" (T1), deviating from native speaker
norms, even resulting in "gobbledygook" (T5). This inevitably resulted in more intensive cognitive
processing. Such examples include "I struggle for words or the right/most appropriate expression"
(T3) and “it was more exhausting and takes up more energy” (T3). T1, the almost bilingual teacher,
while pointing out that her English was very good, nevertheless added “and yet I know that I don’t
know anything because I’m not a native speaker and there are certainly situations where I use the
language differently from our native speakers”.
Notwithstanding this general deficit attitude, the teachers expressed differing beliefs towards the
use of codeswitching as a compensatory measure for any of their own linguistic uncertainties. While
T1 flatly rejected this as a guiding principle, T3, arrived at a completely different conclusion as the
following quote shows: “I’m getting a lot more confident in doing codeswitching, I have realised that
because of some of my language deficits I cannot present every content in the way I’d like to do this
as a content subject teacher, and therefore whenever I have the feeling I cannot get to the heart of it,
then I codeswitch, and yes I feel very fine about it”.
Given the apparent potential of codeswitching as a joint learning experience and as an anxiety
avoidance initiative, as shown above, and the dearth of truly bilingual CLIL teachers, this deficit
attitude appears a deplorable and deeply counter-productive attitude which should be critically
appraised in CLIL teacher education courses.
Conclusion
Codeswitching in CLIL, following similar discussions in the foreign language classroom, has suffered
from a bad reputation by language learning approaches that focus on communicative competence
16
through input, negotiation for meaning, and output production. Loewen (2014: 46) outlines the
codeswitching problem in a forceful and straightforward way, “when the L1 is used, learners do not
receive L2 input; furthermore, there may be no negotiation of meaning, nor are learners pushed to
produce L2 output”. Contrary to this position the classroom observation and reflective data of this
study revealed a clear potential of codeswitching as a pedagogical and learning support tool. The CLIL
teachers in this study were fully aware of operating in an environment marked by high linguistic
fluidity and complexity for themselves and their students. This taxation on their limited target
language resources added a considerable cognitive and affective burden to their already hard
stretched teaching reality. They, therefore, embraced codeswitching as a scaffolding advice for the
learning of new subject knowledge. This attitude I would like to call an enrichment position. It
acknowledges the use of the L1 as an affective and cognitive benefit for the communication and
learning process in CLIL. Similar to a translanguaging position (Garcia & Wei, 2014) in foreign
language learning classrooms, teachers did not necessarily see themselves as the ever-dominant
linguistic authorities but instead to a certain extent as other language learners. Having to codeswitch
for lack of lexical resources was not automatically judged to be a negative and avoidable teaching
technique. On the contrary, the non-language specialists even reported on using their vocabulary
deficits as an incentive to involve their students into a joint and more democratic learning process7.
Furthermore, codeswitching by CLIL teachers constituted a complex and intricate interplay of various
principles that were clearly recognisable in their stories and actions (Golombek, 2009).
It can therefore be maintained with some confidence that three of the initial guiding questions have
been disproved and need to be rephrased as codeswitching by teachers has a clear pedagogical
orientation, is not carried out haphazardly nor unprincipled and neither does it primarily operate as
an emergency tool.
Based on the findings of this study I will propose the following theses:
Teachers' codeswitching in CLIL is motivated by explicit guiding principles.
Contrary to the sparse research on CLIL teachers’ codeswitching (Lasagabaster, 2013; Mendez Garcia
& Pavon Vazquez, 2012), it appears that teachers follow in their classroom behaviour (and explain in
their reflective comments) explicit teaching principles for codeswitching in well-defined educational
contexts, such as behaviour management, giving instructions, clarification sequences, furthering
conceptual development, etc. However, these principles can also be in conflict with each other. For
example, one of the most powerful sites of struggle appeared to be the conflict between the
supremacy of content understanding (knowledge development) on the one hand and the desire to
provide input for target language learning (target language development) on the other. Recent
attempts at didactisising the concept of “every teacher is also a language teacher” and implementing
this as a school policy (Gottlieb & Ernst-Slavit, 2014; Mehisto, 2012; Scarcella, 2003), may harmonise
this conflictual attitude for the CLIL teacher and possibly advance the quality of CLIL teaching.
Teachers' codeswitching in CLIL is contextually constrained.
Teachers' nevertheless clearly outlined why and how they adapted their principles to macro-curricula
(institutional, curricula, governmental, et cetera) and micro-curricula (classroom incidents, private
personal curricula, their classroom identity, et cetera) constraints. The complex interplay guided by a
process of joint negotiation affected teachers’ codeswitching decisions profoundly.
Teachers' codeswitching in CLIL is domain sensitive.
7
This was also observed by (Hüttner & Dalton-Puffer, 2013; Nikula, 2010)
17
Codeswitching behaviour appears to be more frequent within certain domains and less in others.
Note the relative unanimity in teachers' codeswitching for "serious" behavioural incidents on the one
hand, and a wide variety of linguistic actions taken in the explanation of technical terminology on the
other.
Teachers' codeswitching is guided by an affective dimension.
Teachers reported consistently on choosing the L1 for reasons of authenticity and forcefulness. The
social management of the classroom was identified as a major playing field for emotionally
motivated code switching.
Given the pervasive influence and potential of codeswitching for CLIL, a final comment seems to be in
place. Codeswitching must not be treated as an irritating side show in CLIL, neither from a theoretical
nor a methodological perspective. Macaro’s (2014) urgent plea for more theorising of codeswitching
in foreign language classrooms must be taken on board for CLIL and adapted into "how and when
does codeswitching in CLIL best lead to subject learning?” 8. Therefore, critically expounding and
exploiting the potential benefits of codeswitching must also become an essential component of any
CLIL teacher training, whether inservice or preservice.
References
Atkinson, D. (2011). Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge.
Becker-Mrotzek , M., Schramm, K., Thürmann, E., & Vollmer, H. (Eds.). (2013). Sprache im Fach:
Sprachlichkeit und fachliches Lernen (Vol. Fachdidaktische Forschungen). Münster:
Waxmann.
Bosch, M., & Gascon, J. (2006). Twenty-Five Years of the Didactic Transposition. ICMI Bulletin, pp. 5165.
Breidbach, S., & Viebrock, B. (Eds.). (2013). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in
Europe: Research Perspectives on Policy and Practice. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Burns, A., & Barnard, R. (2012). Researching Language Teacher Cognition And Practice: International
Case Studies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Butzkamm, W., & Caldwell, J. A. (2009). The Bilingual Reform: A Paradigm Shift in Foreign Language
Teaching. Tübingen: Peter Narr.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. London:
Routledge.
Christie, F. (2002). Classroom Discourse Analysis. A functional perspective. London: Continuum.
Christie, F., & Martin, J. R. (2007). Language, Knowledge and Pedagogy: Functional Linguistic and
Social Perspectives. London: Continuum.
Cook, G. (2010). Translation in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University press.
Coonan, C. (2007). Insider Views of the CLIL Class Through Teacher Self-observation–Introspection.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), pp. 625-646.
8
The original quote is, “how and when does codeswitching best lead to language learning” (Macaro, 2005, p.
81)
18
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. C. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Costa, F. (2011). Code-switching in CLIL contexts. In C. E. Urmeneta, N. Evnitskaya, E. Moore , & A.
Patino (Eds.), AICLE – CLIL – EMILE: Educació plurilingüe: Experiencias, research & polítiques
(pp. 15-27). Barcelona: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Costa, F., & D'Angelo, L. (2011). CLIL: A Suit for All Seasons. Latin American Journal of Content &
Language Integrated Learning, 4(1), pp. 1-13.
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: towards a connected research agenda for
CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543562.
Coyle, D., Hood , P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content an d language integrated learning. Cambridge:
CUP.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From Practice to Principles.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, pp. 182-204.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2007). Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse. Frankfurt:
Peter Lang.
D'Angelo, L. (2013). The Construction of the CLIL Subject Teacher Identity. In S. Breidbach, & B.
Viebrock (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning (Clil) in Europe: Research
Perspectives on Policy and Practice (pp. 105-116). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
De Graaf, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y., & Westhof, G. (2007). An Observation Tool for Effective L2
Pedagogy inContent and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). The International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), pp. 603-624.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2006). Expressing Anger in Multiple Languages. In A. Pavlenko, Bilingual Minds:
Emotional Experience, Expression and Representation (pp. 118 - 151). Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Ellis, N. C. (2013). Frequency Effects. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Second
Language Acquisition (pp. 260-264). New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition
Research. London: Routledge.
Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gass, S. M., Schachter, J., & Mackey, A. (Eds.). (2011). Data Elicitation for Second and Foreign
Language Research. New York: Routledge.
Georgiou, S. I. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal, 66(4), pp. 495-504.
Gierlinger, E. (2002). Englisch als Arbeitssprache, EAC, EMI, CLIL – Österreich auf dem Weg von
Insellösungen zu Strukturen. Comenius 2.1 Projekt MEMO, Pädagogisches Zentrums der
Diözese Graz, Graz. Retrieved from http://www.pze.at/memo/download/05bestat.pdf
Gogolin, I., Lange, I., Michel, U., & Reich, H. H. (Eds.). (2013). Herausforderung Bildungssprache - und
wie man sie meistert (Vol. FörMig Edition). Münster: Waxmann.
19
Golombek, P. (2009). Personal Practical Knowledge in the L2 Teacher Education. In A. Burns, & J. C.
Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 155-162).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gottlieb, M., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2014). Academic Language in Diverse Classrooms. Thousand Oaks:
Corwin.
Grandinetti, M., Langellotti, M., & Ting, T. Y. (2013). How CLIL can provide a pragmatic means to
renovate science education – even in a sub-optimally bilingual. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, pp. 354-374.
Grenfell, M. (2011). Bourdieu, Language and Linguistics. London: Continuum.
Hallet, W. (2013). Generisches Lernen im Fachunterricht. In M. Becker-Mrotzek, K. Schramm, E.
Thürmann, & H. J. Vollmer (Eds.), Sprache im Fach: Sprachlichkeit und fachliches Lernen (Vol.
Fachdidaktische Forschungen, pp. 58-75). Münster: Waxmann.
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2013). Halliday's Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.).
London: Routledge.
Hüttner, J., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). Der Einfluss sujektiver Sprachlerntheorien auf den Erfolg der
Implementierung von CLIL-Programmen. In S. Breidbach, & B. Viebrock, Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL )in Europe (pp. 129-144). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The Power of Beliefs: Lay theories and their influence
on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 16(3), pp. 267-284.
Kramsch, C. (2009). The Multilingual Subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krashen, S. D., & Terell, T. D. (1992). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lasagabaster, D. (2013). The use of the L1 in CLIL classes: The teachers’ perspective. Latin American
Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, pp. 1-21.
Laufer, B. (2013). Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH). In P. Robinson (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopaedia
of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 344- 346). New York: Routledge.
Laufer, B., & Nation, I. (2012). Vocabulary. In S. M. Gass, & A. Mackey, The Routlegde Handbook of
Second Language Acquisition (pp. 163-176). Oxon: Routledge.
Levine, G. S. (2011). Code choice in the language classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford: OUP.
Lin, A. M. (2013). Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics Review,
4(1), pp. 195-218.
Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2009). Teaching and learning history in secondary CLIL classrooms: from
speaking to writing. In E. Dafouz, & M. C. Guerrini, CLIL across educational levels (pp. 73 - 88).
Richmond Publishing.
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge: CUP.
20
Loewen, S. (2011). Focus on Form. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research In Second Language
Teaching and Learning (Vol. 2, pp. 576-592). New York: Routledge.
Loewen, S. (2014). Introduction to Instructed Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. J. (2011). The Handbook of Language Teaching. Chichester: WileyBlackwell.
Lyster, R. (2008). Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 Classroom: A Communication and Learning Strategy. In E.
Llurda, Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the
Profession (pp. 63-84). New York: Springer.
Macaro, E. (2014). Overview: Where Should We Be Going with Classroom Codeswitching Research?
In R. Barnard, & J. McLellan (Eds.), Codeswitching in University English-Medium Classes: Asian
Perspectives (pp. 10-23). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
MacIntyre, P., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Affect: the role of language and society And Other Emotions in
Language Learning. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams, Psychology for Language Learning:
Insights from Research, Theory and Practice (pp. 103-118). Bristol: Palgrave, MacMillan.
Marsh, D. (2009). Foreword. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, & R. Jimenez Catalan, Content and Language
Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe (pp. vii-viii). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Martin, J. R. (2007). Construing knowledge: a functional linguistics perspective. In F. Christie, & J. R.
Martin (Eds.), Language, Knowledge and Pedagogy (pp. 34-64). London: Continuum.
Mehisto, P. (2012). Excellence in Bilingual Education-A Guide for School Principals. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mehisto, P., Frigols , M.-J., & Marsh, D. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. MacMillan.
Mendez Garcia, M., & Pavon Vazquez, 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, pp. 1-20.
Mitchell, R. F. (2011). Current Trends in Classroom Research. In M. H. Long, & C. J. Doughty (Eds.),
The Handbook of Languaage Teaching (pp. e-book, 19422-20319). Chichester: WileyBlackwell.
Morton, T. (2011). Classroom talk, conceptual change and teacher reflection in bilingual science
teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, pp. 101-110.
Nation, I. (2008). Teaching Vocabulary: Strategies and techniques. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Nikula, T. (2007). The IRF pattern and space for interaction: Observations on EFL and CLIL classrooms.
In C. Dalton-Puffer, & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse (pp.
179-204). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Nikula, T. (2010). Effects of CLIL on a Teacher's Classroom Language Use. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T.
Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language Use and Language Learning Include Classrooms (pp. 105123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
21
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Llinares, A. (2013). CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe.
Journal of Immersion and Content-based Language Education, 1, pp. 70-100.
Perez-Canado, M. (2011). CLIL research in Europe:past, present, and future. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, pp. 1-27.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
CUP.
Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cmabridge University
Press.
Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A Conceptual Framework. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from
University of California linguistic minority research Institute:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6pd082d4
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics Perspective. Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). A Vygotskyan sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The
L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, pp. 101-129.
Tokowicz, N. (2013). Revised Hierarchical Model. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopaedia of
Second Language Acquisition (pp. 559-562). London.
Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O'Cain, J. (2009). First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language
Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Van Lier, L. (2004). The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning. Massachusetts: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Viebrock, B. (2012). "The Situation in the CLIL Classroom Is Quite Different"-or is it? Teachers'
mindsets, Methodological Competences and Teaching Habits. In D. Marsh, & O. Meyer (Eds.),
Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence and Exploring Solutions in CLIL (pp. 79-90). Eichstaett:
Eichstaett Academicemic Press.
Vollmer, H. J., & Thürmann, E. (2013). Sprachbildung und Bildungssprache als Aufgabe aller Fächer
der Regelschule. In M. Becker-Mrotzek, K. Schramm, E. Thürmann, & H. J. Vollmer (Eds.),
Sprache im Fach: Sprachlichkeit und fachliches Lernen (Vol. Fachdidaktische Forschungen, pp.
41-57). Münster: Waxmann.
Wannagat, U. (2007). Learning through L2 – Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and
English as Medium of Instruction (EMI). International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 10(5), pp. 663-682.
Yerrick, R., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Establishing Scientific Classroom Discourse Communities. Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22