difficulties in the development of L2 CALP associated to underdeveloped L1 CALP. In the project described above, students who did well in science were those who had developed stronger literacy skills in L1 and L2, which empow- ered them to build their entire linguistic repertoires. This was evident when students presented their research findings to visitors who came from different contexts and cultures. The students who had developed literacy skills in L1 and L2 exhibited greater confidence to display all their linguistic tools to com- municate with their audience effectively.
Bilingual practices should not be framed as a dichotomy where two lan- guages are learnt independently. Conversely, there is a bilingual continuum that changes according to the skill that has been developed. What we may call a more formal use of English or of Spanish, refers simply to the codes that are recognised in an academic learning community. The proposed learning pro- gression accepted for decades might be incomplete or speculative if learners are not considered holistically, without artificial snapshots of students’ com- petencies at a certain time. Students learn science by actively engaging in sci- entific practices. For that reason, their whole linguistic repertoire is key to articulate their thinking and understanding of the natural world.
possible, placing emphasis on the importance of making language choices regarding contexts and purposes.
The switch between academic language and colloquial language in bilin- gual settings is a decision speakers make when communicating thoughts and ideas according to audiences and purpose. Having laid out the mainstay of how languaging may influence the way we do science in CLIL, it is my hope that content and language teachers feel encouraged to design bilingual learn- ing environments where decisions regarding language are systematically made.
Teachers are also encouraged to switch from technical academic language to less sophisticated versions of language that may facilitate students’ under- standing of phenomena. The decision of translanguaging across disciplines might depend on classroom dynamics and both content- and language- learning outcomes.
Finally, CLIL science classrooms are encouraged to shift from a deficit model, where students are expected to acquire the language of science and learn by heart, to a dialogic model of science, where learners construct science through understanding how concepts have been refined and how myths have been debunked through experimentation. Integrating content and language through translanguaging pedagogies and inquiry-based science offers learners opportunities to explain phenomena while languaging their thinking. It is my hope that these learners will challenge well-established ideas to innovate and propose new ways to see the natural world and eventually help us, as human beings, evolve and develop collectively in more sustainable ways.
Suggested Further Reading
Fang, Z., Lamme, L. L., & Pringle, R. M. (2010). Language and literacy in inquiry-based science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
This book supports CLIL teachers with key aspects of science literacy and practical hands-on material to scaffold both science and English learning.
National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
This volume makes a significant contribution to science education by chal- lenging from a pedagogical perspective the way educators perceive language and content in science lessons.
Peña Dix, B., Tejada Sánchez, I., & Truscott de Mejía, A. M. (Eds.). (2019).
Interculturalidad y formación de profesores: Perspectivas pedagógicas y multil- ingües. Bogotá, Colombia: Ediciones Uniandes.
A book that has been written in four languages (Spanish, English, French, and Portuguese) and displays research conducted in Colombian and French universities by language experts in multilingual contexts. I recommend it highly for pre-service teacher education programmes.
Engagement Priorities
• BICS and CALP should be carefully analysed in educational contexts. Are these terms part of the unique linguistic repertoire students possess? Should BICS and CALP permeate students’ entire linguistic repertoire in any dis- cipline/context?
• Translanguaging seems to be an innovative approach to foster proficiency in two or more languages. Why do some educational institutions remain reluctant to the idea of integrating more than one language in the classroom?
• Content teachers may need to become more aware of the role that language has in their classrooms. How can content teachers be supported to contrib- ute to the development of literacies and language proficiency?
• Cutting-edge research has debunked well-established myths in bilingual education. What other transformations may take place in bilingual class- rooms through CLIL and translanguaging?
References
Anderson, C. E. (2011). CLIL for CALP in the multilingual, pluricultural, global- ized knowledge society: Experiences and backgrounds to L2 English usage among Latin American L1 Spanish- users. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 51–66.
Banegas, D. L., Corrales, K., & Poole, P. (2020). Can engaging L2 teachers as mate- rial designers contribute to their professional development? Findings from Colombia. System, 91, 102265.
Bonilla Carvajal, C. A., & Tejada-Sánchez, I. (2016). Unanswered questions in Colombia’s language education policy. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 18(1), 185–201.
Bravo, M. A., & Cervetti, G. N. (2014). Attending to the language and literacy needs of English learners in science. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(2), 230–245.
Burbano, P. A., Machado, L. M., & Pérez, V. M. (2016). Assessment of a bilin- gual program based on content and language integrated learning in a state
school of Pereira. Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira. Available at: https://
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/630c/c03a0e862c06891572d9c207834f1d3a50f9.
pdf?_ga=2.262319180.1721659583.1583196891- 418901298.1583196891 Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL—A pedagogical approach from the European perspective.
In Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1200–1214). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interde- pendence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.
Cummins, J. (1980/2001). The entry and exit fallacy in bilingual education. In C. Baker & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), An introductory reader to the writings of Jim Cummins (pp. 110–138). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
De Mejía, A. M., López Mendoza, A., & Peña Dix, B. (2011). Bilingüismo en el con- texto colombiano: Iniciativas y perspectivas en el siglo XXI. Bogotá, Colombia:
Ediciones Uniandes.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Basil/Blackwell.
García, O., Johnson, S., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom.
Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia: Caslon.
García, O., & Leiva, C. (2014). Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 199–216). New York: Springer.
García, O., & Lin, A. (2016). Translanguaging in bilingual education. In O. García
& A. Lin (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Garzón-Díaz, E. (2018). From cultural awareness to scientific citizenship:
Implementing content and language integrated learning projects to connect envi- ronmental science and English in a state school in Colombia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1367005 0.2018.1456512
Garzón-Díaz, E. (2019). How to understand the cultural component of CLIL in sci- ence classrooms: Scientific citizenship a key factor to be considered in the profes- sional development of science teachers who operate in bilingual settings. In B. Peña Dix, M. I. Tejada Sánchez, & A. M. Truscott de Mejía (Eds.), Interculturalidad y formación de profesores: Perspectivas pedagógicas y multilingües (pp. 211–230). Bogotá, Colombia: Ediciones Uniandes.
Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2016). CLIL in context: Practical guidance for educators.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Henao, T. M., & Ocampo, Y. R. (2014). Content and language integrated learning as dynamic bilingual education in two state schools. Universidad Tecnológica de
Pereira. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f286/4d25260b4fde5012e 0b299ca27ea3e25369f.pdf?_ga=2.38899683.1721659583.1583196891- 4189 01298.1583196891
Jackson, J. K., Huerta, M., & Garza, T. (2020). A promising science and literacy instructional model with Hispanic fifth grade students. The Journal of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2020.1728734.
Jaramillo, S. G., Ospina, D., & Reinoso, P. E. (2016). Analysis of a dynamic bilingual education model based on CLIL and translanguaging in state school. Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira. Available at: https://pdfs.
semanticscholar.org/e789/f4148d73cea70b765929aca1cec50c090703.
pdf?_ga=2.266461262.1721659583.1583196891- 418901298.1583196891 Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, MA:
Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Developing its conceptu- alisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655–670.
Lin, A. M. Y., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 228–244.
Lin, A. M. Y., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). Translanguaging and the triadic dialogue in con- tent and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Language and Education, 31(1), 26–45.
McDougald, J. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes, perceptions and experiences in CLIL: A look at content and language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 17(1), 25–41.
McKinney, C., & Tyler, R. (2019). Disinventing and reconstituting language for learning in school science. Language and Education, 33(2), 141–158.
Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237–249.
Ortega, Y. (2019). ‘Teacher, ¿puedo hablar en español?’ A reflection on plurilingual- ism and translanguaging practices in EFL. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 21(2), 155–170.
Reed, D. K., Jemison, E., Sidler-Folsom, J., & Weber, A. (2019). Electronic graphic organizers for learning science vocabulary and concepts: The effects of online syn- chronous discussion. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(4), 552–574.
Skovholt, K. (2018). Establishing scientific discourse in classroom interaction teacher students’ orientation to mundane versus technical talk in the school subject Norwegian. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(2), 229–244.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immer- sion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 101–129.
Vollmer, H. (2010). Lingua(e) delle altre discipline. Italiano LinguaDue, 2(1), 271–283.
Wallace, C. S., & Coffey, D. J. (2019). Investigating elementary Preservice teachers’
designs for integrated science/literacy instruction highlighting similar cognitive processes. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(5), 507–527.
Williams, M., & Tang, K. S. (2020). The implications of the non-linguistic modes of meaning for language learners in science: A review. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1748249.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 107 C. Hemmi, D. L. Banegas (eds.), International Perspectives on CLIL, International Perspectives on English Language Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70095-9_6