Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our products.

This functionality is provided solely for your

convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS
AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale Academic OneFile Terms and Conditions and by using the machine
generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the
machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

AN EXPLORATION OF CONTENT AND LANGUAGE

INTEGRATED PEDAGOGY
Authors: Ruth Fielding and Lesley Harbon
Date: July-August 2018
From: Babel(Vol. 52, Issue 2)
Publisher: Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations
Document Type: Report
Length: 7,118 words

Abstract:
Bilingual education has a history of implementation over many decades, and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as a
model of bilingual education pedagogy has been adopted by a small group of teachers in various countries over many years. CLIL
teachers with whom we have worked since 2010 have indicated to us that the existing bilingual pedagogy frameworks available to
them do not provide a practical set of components that help to understand how a CLIL pedagogy differs eitherfrom accomplished
teaching of primary school students or accomplished teaching of languages through other methodologies. In this article we
endeavour therefore to highlight a framework which adds to the existing theoretical frames (Coyle, 2008; Coyle, Hood, Marsh, 2010)
and which is also approachable and recognisable to teachers in contexts operating with a CLIL base. We draw on data from
classroom video footage and analyse the discourse and interactions in four CLIL classrooms to propose a pedagogical model that
outlines how such a pedagogy combines learning and use of two languages alongside content learning. We also indicate where the
pedagogy reflects more general notions of accomplished teaching in primary schools and where it offers something unique to the
CLIL context through the use of translanguaging. The data are drawn from four schools in NSW, Australia, where new programs of
language and content integration were implemented over the past six years. At the start, the teachers involved in the project had no
prior knowledge of bilingual education other than anecdotal experience, and therefore their evolving pedagogies provide insight into
how primary teachers have developed approaches from the ground up to incorporate the learning of two languages alongside subject
content. The key distinguishing aspect, we believe, between accomplished primary pedagogy and CLIL pedagogy is in relation to the
learning cycle used by the teachers and the in-flight changes employed by teachers as they integrate and embed multiple semiotics
and content into their interaction with the students through translanguaging. This learning cycle, and the emerging semiotic
pedagogies derived from teaching interactions may be useful to other teachers in bilingual classrooms, or considering it as an option
for emerging languages teaching and learning contexts.

KEYWORDS

Content and Language Integrated Learning, CLJL, languages pedagogy, primary pedagogy, accomplished teaching of languages
and cultures.

Full Text:
INTRODUCTION

CLIL education and other forms of bilingual education have existed for some time (for a comprehensive review and comparison of the
many different forms of bilingual education see Baker & Wright, 2017). CLIL is primarily distinguished from other forms of bilingual
education by being a model used for additional language learning in which there is no minimum time specified for learning through
the target language. Schools can therefore implement CLIL to varying extents, from one subject area (or Key Learning Area- KLA)
through to a whole day or multiple days per week. Most research on CLIL programs comes from the United Kingdom and European
contexts. Frameworks have been developed which describe CLIL pedagogy (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010), but teachers working with
us found these were insufficient to guide the practice they were undertaking in their school contexts.

Research exists on immersion contexts in Canada and USA, but much of that research has taken place either with secondary
learners, or in primary schools which offer full or partial immersion: contexts which can be much more extensive in terms of time on
task than the CLIL model we explore here. Little research has offered teachers a practical idea of how a CLIL pedagogy differs either
from accomplished teaching of primary school students in general or from teaching in other languages classrooms.

We have found in our research in schools in NSW that teachers crave a more tangible and specific pedagogical model to illustrate
what they do, which enables them to speak about their work at a pedagogical level. The teachers in the NSW programs knew, for
example, about the 4Cs (Coyle, Marsh & Hood, 2010) frame, which indicates how Content, Communication, Cognition and Culture
underpin what takes place in CLIL classrooms (see the following section on prior literature for more detail) However teachers found it
difficult to apply this and other existing frameworks and sought some specificity about the types of interactions they use in the
classroom to move between the different requirements of a CLIL classroom.

We draw on data from classroom video footage to analyse the discourse and interactions of the classroom to propose a pedagogical
model that outlines how CLIL pedagogy combines the use and learning of two languages alongside content learning. We also signal
where the pedagogy reflects notions of accomplished teaching in primary schools and where it offers something unique to a CLIL
setting. We argue that the key distinguishing aspects of accomplished primary pedagogy and accomplished CLIL pedagogy is in the
cycle of learning in the classroom and the in-flight changes employed by teachers as they integrate and embed multiple semiotics
and content into their interaction with the students through two languages. The CLIL difference can be seen in the need to move
between language 1, language 2, subject content and classroom management seamlessly. We argue that translanguaging is used in
these contexts rather than code-switching, because the movement is more complex than purely the teacher's binary movement
between two languages. The discourse flow can be either from language to language and back again, use of paralinguistics to
support communication, or a combination of the two between and across both languages, with pedagogical reasons (e.g., scaffolding
comprehension, behaviour management, emphasis) as the basis of moving between languages.

We propose a pedagogical model that outlines how CLIL pedagogy combines the teaching/learning and use of two languages
alongside content teaching/learning. In so doing we also highlight the unique aspects of the pedagogy that make this teaching CLIL
rather than simply emulating accomplished primary education. We note that the teachers in these classrooms have developed their
pedagogical practice to respond to real-life challenges of their particular contexts. The programs were initially set up with the simple
instruction that they were to be "bilingual programs". It is through their implementation that a CLIL model has emerged within
classrooms.

The guidance and instruction provided to the teachers in how to teach "bilingually" was extremely limited, and higher-level guidance
for teachers on the wide variation possible within that term was not initially provided (Baker & Wright, 2017). We acknowledge that
one of the key factors in this context is that the teachers were given no background understanding or training in the many models of
bilingual education available, and therefore their pedagogical practice has emerged as an approach developed in the field, building
upon their notions of accomplished teaching and pedagogical practice more generally. It has been through our research with them
that they have encountered and identified with CLIL as a pedagogical framework (Fielding & Harbon, 2014), and so their practice has
developed in response to their needs rather than developed using the guidance of existing CLIL frames. We believe, that the
development of these programs, which now have many similarities to other CLIL programs (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010), can offer
insight into the specific pedagogical practices taking place in the CLIL classroom. We have found in exploring these classrooms that
the essence of the pedagogy is framed through the teacher interaction and their fast-paced switches between language, content and
process, utilising translanguaging as a key communicative tool.

BACKGROUND LITERATURE

What is accomplished primary pedagogy?

Siraj and Taggart (2014, p.6) have indicated that "there are numerous definitions of pedagogy and much time has been devoted to
debating their subtleties". At various times pedagogy has been referred to as a science, an art, and also more broadly as any and all
decision-making that a teacher undertakes (Marzano, 2017; Siraj & Taggart, 2014), Debates continue around the meaning of the
term. In this article we use pedagogy to refer to the decision-making and practice of teaching as undertaken by the teachers we
observed. As the teachers are in a primary school setting, we start from an understanding of accomplished practice in primary
teaching and then focus upon what accomplished practice in a CLIL setting might involve. Prior studies use a variety of terms such as
"best practice", and "effective practice", but we prefer to use the term accomplished to align with the accomplished teaching of
languages and cultures developed in Australia (AFMLTA, 2005).

Siraj and Taggart (2014, pp. 6-12) in their extensive longitudinal study of primary pedagogy have indicated that accomplished
practice includes:

* teacher organisational skills enabling a good pace in class

* clearly shared objectives between teacher and student

* good behaviour management

* collaborative learning

* explicit cross-curricular linking

* dialogic teaching and learning (interactive discourse about learning)

* evaluative feedback

* use of 'plenaries' within lessons.

Their research with a larger group of academics scopes elements which add affective dimensions and a wholistic approach to
accomplished teaching practices:

* (meaningful) homework
* (positive) classroom climate

* personalised teaching (and learning), where teachers react to students' individual needs

* assessment for learning.

This prior work results in a comprehensive set of elements, which, it is argued, add up to accomplished practice (Siraj-Blatchford,
Shepherd, Melhuish, Taggart, Sammons and Sylva, 2010). We would see these elements as part of accomplished practice in any
primary classroom, including a CLIL program classroom.

The Five Standards of Effective Pedagogy (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton and Yameuchi, 2000) have been developed by Tharp et al. (2000)
as key factors leading to learning success for all students regardless of background and language. These are:

* joint productive activity

* language development

* contextualisation

* challenging activities

* instructional conversation.

We would therefore argue that any CLIL pedagogy would involve within it elements of this list of characteristics of effective primary
pedagogies, but also that there are specific elements which set CLIL aside from general classroom practice.

Prior pedagogical work in CLIL/ bilingual pedagogy:

Bilingual education in its many forms comprises common elements, such as teachers with a competence in two languages, and use
of a language other than the language commonly used by class participants to teach and learn content areas such as geography,
history, maths or science. CLIL has evolved as one form of bilingual education pedagogy likened to immersion (Cenoz, Genesee and
Gorter, 2014). CLIL has distinct characteristics, primarily the lack of a prescribed quantity of time to be spent in the new language of
learning per week, In addition, the contexts in which CLIL takes places tend to be additive language environments, although the
multilingual nature of citizens in countries like Australia mean that the boundaries between previously distinct education models now
need to be merged, and more complex models which incorporate notions such as a translanguaging pedagogy need to be
developed, Coyle, Marsh and Hood (2010) use the 4Cs Framework to indicate their understanding of how language and content
learning should be integrated within a CLIL pedagogy. They indicate that there arefour key components to a CLIL pedagogy: Content,
Communication, Cognition and Culture. They suggest that all four must be interlinked, taking into account the specific overarching
context in which learning takes place. They argue that effective CLIL pedagogy encompasses these four Cs within their context
through:

* progression in knowledge, skills and understanding of the content

* engagement in associated cognitive processing

* interaction in the communicative context

* development of appropriate language knowledge and skills

* acquisition of a deepening intercultural awareness (Coyle et al, 2010, p.41).

They also refer to Cummins' well-known Matrix which indicates the consideration required in bilingual learning settings of cognitive
and linguistic demands to ensure that learning is both linguistically and cognitively appropriate for learners (Cummins, 1984).

In our experience, while such theoretical constructs are available to teachers working in CLIL settings, teachers themselves still are
not clear about what their practice might look like in the classroom in order that they might use a checklist to guide their pedagogy.
Teachers seek a clearer indication of what their work might look like. In addition, the CLIL 4Cs does not allow for movement between
languages which we know works effectively within the classrooms we have studied. We therefore feel there is a need to incorporate
further elements into a CLIL pedagogy to allow for the reality of these complex classrooms. Fa this reason, elements of a
translanguaging pedagogy (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Garcia, 2009; Sayer, 2012) need to be incorporated into a CLIL pedagogy.

TRANSLANGUAGING AS PEDAGOGY

Theoretical exploration of how bilingual pedagogy is enacted, has increasingly argued that bilingual pedagogy needs to move away
from monolingual norms and the separation of languages. Creese and Blackledge (2010, p.112) use Garcia's term "translanguaging"
and the long-established term "heteroglossia" to describe how they see bilingual pedagogy being enacted according to bilingual
norms in what they term "flexible bilingualism". Creese and Blackledge (2010, pp. 112-113) identify seven key elements to a flexible
bilingual pedagogy:

1) the use of bilingual label quests, repetition and translation across languages
2) the ability to engage audiences through translanguaging and heteroglossia

3) the use of student translanguaging to establish identity positions both oppositional and encompassing of institutional values

4) recognition that languages do not fit into bounded entities and that all languages are needed for meanings to be conveyed and
negotiated

5) endorsement of simultaneous literacies and languages to keep the pedagogic task moving

6) recognition that teachers and students skilfully use their languages for different functional goals such as narration and explanation

7) use of translanguaging for annotating texts, providing greater access to the curriculum, and lesson accomplishment.

Creese and Blackledge (2010) conclude that bilingual pedagogy needs to legitimise the movement between languages to "ease the
burden of guilt" (p.113) which teachers experience when translanguaging in contexts where monolingual expectations of language
separation prevail. Within languages education theorisation, an increasing understanding of a multilingual turn has developed
(Conteh & Meier, 2014; Hajek & Slaughter, 2015; May, 2014), However, this has yet to impact in any significant manner upon the
expectations of the wider community including teachersfrom non-language teaching backgrounds.

Following a similar theoretical underpinning to Creese and Blackledge, Sayer (2012) explores the use of translanguaging as a
pedagogical tool in bilingual classrooms in Texas. He argues that although his research initially intended to count the language
functions that were taking place in each language in the classroom, by undertaking a translanguaging approach he observed that the
focus needed to be less upon the "language per se and more concerned with examining how bilinguals make sense of things through
language" (Sayer, 2012, p84). He insists that within this approach the bilingual discourse practices need to be seen within their social
order and therefore he re-emphasises the approach of Creese and Blackledge using language ecology (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008)
as the approach to study. Sayer (2012) identifies three forms of translanguaging:

1) teaching standard languagethrough the vernacular

2) using the vernacular to mediate academic content

3) imparting lessons that instil ethnolinguistic consciousness and pride.

We can see through Sayer's (2012) study that the users of the translanguaging pedagogy are not just teachers, and that students,
too, enact the pedagogy. We see the important crossover between translanguaging pedagogy and the use of language in CLIL
classrooms. We see elements of translanguaging as pedagogy in this context in the following ways:

* repetition

* translation (in limited amounts)

* simultaneous literacies and languages

* teacher and students using both languages to achieve different goals.

We are brought to the point of realising a place for the use of English (as the dominant language in our context) as well as the target
language within a CLIL pedagogy.

There is very little empirical research exploring the spoken language use of teachers in bilingual settings. Lorenzo (2008) explored
teachers' use of instructional discourse in bilingual settings by exploring the reading texts used by teachers in CLIL settings. He
examined how the texts were adjusted by the teachers to make them comprehensible. Lorenzo argued that the use of CLIL as a
pedagogy had "outpaced" the development of research and good practice (2008). We can see that in the case of teacher talk in the
classroom this may still be true. We can also argue that as policy-makers establish top-down policy mandates to introduce "bilingual"
or CLIL programs, they do so without knowledge or understanding of the necessary training for teachers to know how to change their
teaching. Lorenzo (2008) explores how teachers use three different strategies;

* simplification using processes such as reducing the number of words per sentence or restricting the range of vocabulary

* elaboration - such as paraphrasing, repetition, apposition

* rediscursification - more use of questioning, more explicit use of markers of evaluation, attitude, hedging, shortening of secondary
ideas, use of supporting text such as footnotes, graphs, visual tools, glossaries, pre-tasks.

Lorenzo (2008) concludes that teachers need to be taught explicitly how to use language in the bilingual classroom, what language to
use, and need specific development on how to modify input in optimal ways for their classroom. While Lorenzo's workfocussed upon
reading texts, we would argue that many of the strategies used by teachers in adapting written text for their learners are similar in
nature to the adaptations of their teacher talk in the classroom within a CLIL pedagogy, in particular the use of paraphrasing,
repetition and rediscursification. Such strategies need to be taught through professional education and through sharing within a
community of practice.

Lewis, Jones and Baker (2012) cite Estyn (2002) who indicated that the best uses of translanguaging between Welsh and English
were:

* speaking and listening - listen in one language and give the gist in another; express information in a formal register through
switches

* reading - use sources in both languages and summarise the main points orally or in writing in one language; read a text in one
language and complete tasks based on it in another language

* writing - communicate information that has been read or heard in one language in writing in the other language; summarise
information heard in one language accurately in another language.

This model has similarities to a typology described by Garcia (2009) which includes the previewing of content in one language, the
conduct of the task in the target language and the reviewing of the task in the first (or both) language(s). Lewis, Jones and Baker
(2012) identify three types of translanguaging - classroom translanguaging: that which takes place in the classroom and is planned
and/or serendipitous with a pedagogic emphasis;

* universal - translanguaging: with cognitive, contextual and cultural aspects; and

* neurolinguistic translanguaging: which explores the brain activity when both languages are activated.

For our study we are concerned with the classroom translanguaging and we believe there is a place for this within the frame of a CLIL
pedagogy. The pedagogical framework we discuss in this paper, the frame we have seen embodied in the four NSW school contexts,
is outlined in the following section.

FRAMEWORK

Our study is framed by accomplished primary classroom pedagogy with a focus on the language-related elements which define a
CLIL pedagogy.

The Five standards of Effective Pedagogy (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton and Yameuchi, 2000) are:

* joint productive activity

* language development

* contextualisation

* challenging activities

* instructional conversation.

All five are seen in successful primary classrooms, but within a CLIL classroom we argue that there are elements within the
Language Development strand of the 5 standards and in the target language. Specifically, Language Development is broken down
into four sub-strands:

* modelling, eliciting, probing, restating, clarifying, questioning and praising

* connecting language with literacy

* using the first/dominant and second/additional languages for clarification

* in-flight changes.

It is these four sub-strands that we believe indicate how a CLL classroom contains elements of difference from a primary classroom
in a non-CLIL setting, and also differences to a non-CLIL languages program.

These elements we argue, show evidence of the grounded nature of the development of this CLIL pedagogy. We further explain the
notion of the in-flight changes to be:

* between language learning and content learning

* between Korean/Indonesian/Chinese/Japanese and English

* between different modes of language and the process of learning and/or classroom management.

These changes can also be seen through the following strategies taken from the sub-strands of the five standards and incorporating
the use of translanguaging:

* restating/ probing for further clarification

* paralinguistics (e.g. gestures, tone, volume, speed of speech)

* connecting language with reading or writing

* translanguaging

* embedding of culture.

It is through these five elements that we see CLIL pedagogy being enacted in the four sets of classrooms we studied. We see the key
to the pedagogy to be within the in-flight changes and teachers' guidance of students through a cycle of learning which involves
multiple semiotic resources. This means the teachers use gestures, a multitude of resources, restating, in-flight changes and
paralinguistics to scaffold the language and content messages they are delivering to their students. The teachers use body language
to convey meaning and embed multiple layers of content into their interactions. The students thus participate in a cycle of learning
that engages them with content through the language in a variety of ways within a short space of time.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The data presented here were collected from four schools in NSW, Australia. In 2009 the four schools had been selected to
participate in a pilot program introducing a bilingual style of language learning. Each school was allocated one of four government-
identified "priority languages" at the point of introduction of the program - Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean - and began
implementing a program from 2010, beginning with the Kindergarten and Year 1 class and progressing through to Year 6 (the final
year of primary school in NSW). At the start of the program the teachers were simply advised to implement a bilingual program with
the only requirement being five hours of language learning to be integrated with subject-matter teaching each week. Our first piece of
research in the schools identified that the model being followed in each case could be most closely aligned with a CLIL style of
bilingual education (Fielding & Harbon, 2014). Data collected for this article comprised the classroom discourse and physical activity
captured on video during observations at each of the four schools in 2013/2014.

In order to explore the nature of the pedagogies developing and unfolding in these four school contexts, we sought to answer the
following research questions:

1. What is the nature of the CLIL teaching in these schools that allows for language development alongside content learning?

2. What is the difference between CLIL pedagogy and accomplished teaching in a primary monolingual context?

We gathered data in the form of video footage of the four school classrooms. These videos were recorded after we received
University ethics permissions and NSW Department of Education and Communities SERAP (ethics) approval to film the classroom
interaction. The classroom footage was then transcribed for the verbal interaction in each of the languages: Chinese (Mandarin),
Indonesian, Japanese and Korean. Native speakers of each language undertook the transcription, and also translated the transcripts
into English. Alongside the verbal transcription, annotations were allocated to the interaction depicting the physical interaction taking
place alongside the verbal interaction indicating body language, gestures, facial expressions, unspoken responses and questions and
any other physical elements of the classroom interaction.

These transcripts and the original videos were then used as the data sources to develop themes underpinning the pedagogies used
by each teacher. Using the "Five Standards" as a basis for thematic coding, the transcripts and videos were re-examined for their
indications of:

* in-flight changes

* between language learning and content learning

* between Korean/Indonesian/Chinese/Japanese and English

* between different modes of language and the process of learning and/or classroom management

* restating

* probing for further clarification

* paralinguistics

* connecting language with reading or writing

* translanguaging/ code-switching

* embedding of culture.

Findings

Our findings are discussed in relation to the framework depicted above and in line with the research questions.

1. What is the nature of the CLIL teaching in these four schools that allows fa language development alongside content learning?
The nature of CLIL teaching is shown through the in-flight changes we have observed across the four schools.

In all examples that follow, the transcription is presented within the columns thus:

Speaker Transcript English translation Paralinguistic notes (where applicable)

In-flight changes can be seen broadly in the following examples;

Example 1: Korean In this example students in Year 1 are learning about which foods need to be kept in the fridge. The
in-flight changes can be seen between the content learning about which foods must be kept in the fridge and the language
learning of food vocabulary. The teacher also moves between Korean and English to emphasise a key point. Teacher gwa il
Student gwa il Teacher gwa il, gwa il deureoga X haeboseyo Student uyu Teacher uyudo deureogaji? Teacher (English) We put
food in the fridge don't we? Teacher eum sik Students eum sik Teacher eumsikeul yeojjokega Teacher igeoseul mandeulgeo
Teacher (fruit) Student (fruit) Teacher (fruit, fruit goes inside. X you try) Student (milk) Teacher (milk goes inside
too doesn't it? Teacher We put food in the fridge don't we? Teacher (food) Students (food) Teacher (the food goes on this
side) Teacher (we're going to make this) Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Teacher Teacher Students Teacher Shows
on a model Teacher Shows a paper fridge they will make Example 2: Japanese In this example the teacher switches from
content instructions, to classroom management, to English for further management of the task, then back to Japanese.
Teacher o arekkusu jyouzu ashi hai sutanpu Alanna Alanna ichi ni san ichi ni san ichi ni san ichi ni san Teacher sensei
chekingu, miteiruyo Ethan jyouzu Teacher (English) hold your pen properly Student 2 ichi ni san yon Teacher (English) yes
they probably do need a wash with all the texta on them (English) this one especially Teacher Oh Alex, very good legs
here a stamp Alanna Alanna one, two, three one, two, three one, two, three one, two, three Teacher I'm checking, I'm
looking Good work, Ethan Teacher hold your pen properly Student 2 one, two, three, four Teacher yes they probably do need
a wash with all the texta on them this one especially Example 3: Indonesian In this example the Indonesian teacher makes
in-flight changes to switch to a language focus and back to content. Teacher Ya. Yes. Ok, siapa belum depat? Ok, who
hasn't had a turn? Isabel? Isabel? Isabel Ayo, coba. Isabel. Ayo, cobe Student Teacher Lebih keras, keras, dan besar.
louder, louder Encang. Encang. Merayakan. To celebrate. Waisak. Vesak. Student Teacher Student Student reads the text on
the board. Teacher Teacher gestures for the student to be louder Teacher corrects the pronunciation Student Student keeps
reading the text Teacher Teacher Use body language to facilitate students' understanding Restating: correct pronunciation
Student Example 4: Indonesian In this example, in-flight changes can be seen to switch to a technical classroom
instruction and then switch back to content. Teacher Oh, di Indonesia ada Hari Ibu. Oh, in Indonesia there is Ya, Hari
Ibu, bagus. Mother's Day. Yes Mother's Ini pena merah. Tidak apa-apa Day, good. oh, tidak apa-apa. This is red pen. That
is ok. Callum? Oh, that is ok. Hari Paskah, Callum? Student Hari Paskah? Sudah. Easter. Teacher John. Easter? We have
that already. Oh, Zane, diamlah. Maaf? John. Hari ANZAC. Oh, Zane, silent please. Student Hari ANZAC. Sorry? Teacher
Bagus John. ANZAC Day. ANZAC Day. Good John. Teacher Student Teacher Teacher gestures that she needs Use body language to
replace the student to repeat. complex instruction Student Teacher

The in-flight changes occur so quickly:

* for focusing students' attention

* for ensuring comprehension

* for classroom management.

Without close attention to the written transcript of the oral interactions, and close scrutiny of the video footage, the spur-of-the-
moment evidences of teachers making decisions to take the class discourse in one way or the other, such translanguaging strategies
could be missed using other observation schedules.

2. What is the difference between CLIL pedagogy and accomplished teaching in a primary monolingual context?

The second research question can be answered by our exploration of the language based and translanguaging sub-elements of the
in-flight pedagogy. These are shown in the following sections with examples of each element.

The sub-elements of the in-flight pedagogy

To further indicate our findings we show in the following section some examples of classroom interaction, which highlight particular
elements of the in-flight pedagogy.

Paralinguistics

The use of paralinguistic strategies can be seen in the following examples:

Example 1: Japanese In this example the teacher uses body language to indicate physical instructions, Teacher u Oops
douzo Here you are Student ariga:ou thank you Student(s) Classroom Teacher (English) Oop Teacher a Jyacinta Ah Jacinta
Chotto kocchi suwatte Sit a bit further over to the side Kocchi there Tatte tatte Stand up, stand up Classroom Teacher
(English) (English) Ethan move across Teacher Lachlan where should you be? Suwatte Douzzo Sit down Here you are Teacher
Student Takes card walks to toward baskets Student(s) Trips over Jacinta Classroom Teacher Teacher Moves to Jacinta and
taps on her arm Move hands up to indicate "stand up" Classroom Teacher Teacher Wave her hand to the left to indicate
"Move here" Teacher Student Student(s) Classroom Teacher Teacher Use body language to facilitate understanding Use body
language to facilitate understand Classroom Teacher Teacher Use body language to replace complex instruction Example 2:
Japanese In this example the teacher uses body language to indicate classroom management and instructions. Teacher
Tsugiwa katakana ikuyo Next we'll do katakana ii? Okay? Ripiito shinai We don't repeat Ripiito shinai We don't repeat
Shiitse Shhh Ripiito shinai We don't repeat Teacher and Barney Will suwatte chanto Barney, Will sit properly Students
song song a I u e ohayou a I u e good morning ka ki ku ke konnichiwa ka ki ku ke hello sa shi su se soudesune sa shi su
se that's right ta chi tsu te tomodachi ta chi tsu te friend na ni nu nonbiri na ni nu ne carefree minnadee utaumashou
Everybody let's sing ha hi hu he hokkaido ha hi hu he hokkaido Teacher Shakes head Put her finger on her lips to indicate
"be quiet" Crosses arms making an 'x' indicating 'no' Teacher and Students Palm open and close to represent mouth
movement - singing Teacher Use body language to facilitate students' understanding Use body language to facilitate
students' understanding Use body language to facilitate students' understanding Teacher and Students Use body language to
facilitate students' understanding Example 3: Japanese In this example the teacher uses gestures to indicate what she
means and for classroom management. Teacher sensei I Will walk around and aruite check Ms. Smith will cheku suru kara
Walk around and check Smith sensei mo Do you understand airuite cheku suru Yes Yes, okay whose is this? wakatta? Students
hai ah ah shhhh Teacher hai jya kore dare? here, because the pens are a ash here koko pen koko ni arukara Teacher Points
to herself Motions walking using index and middle finger Points to both eyes Motions walking using index and middle
finger then points to both eyes Students Holds up laminated sheet of A4 Teacher paper Puts her finger on her lips to
indicate 'be quiet' Teacher Use body language to facilitate students' understanding Use body language to facilitate
students' understanding Use body language to facilitate students' understanding Use body language to facilitate students'
understanding Students Teacher Use body language to facilitate students' understanding Use body language to facilitate
students' understanding Example 4: Indonesian In this example the teacher uses gestures to indicate her meaning, and to
assist with student understanding. Teacher O. bagus Wow, good. Siapa senang? Oh, saya juga. Who's happy? Oh, me too.
Angkat tangan, Tahlia. Hand up, Tahlia. Zane dan Oscar, diam Zane, Oscar, silent please. Student Dua puluh satu days to
Twenty one days to Teacher (inaudible) birthday (inaudible) birthday Ulang tahunnya (inaudible) (inaudible) birthday...
O, Tahlia senang sekall. Wow, Tahlia is very happy Ok, bagaimana cuaca hari inii? Ok, how is the weather Hari ini, emm,
musim, musim today? apa? Today, umm, season, what Tahlia, hari ini musim...? season? Pertama hari, musim? Tahlia, today's
season is...? First day of...? Teacher Teacher puts her hand up to show who is happy should put their hand up. Student
Teacher The teacher fanned herself with both hands to indicate that it's hot Teacher Use body language to replace complex
construction Student Teacher Use body language to elicit student's answer Example 5: Chinese In this example the teacher
uses gestures to indicate her meaning, and to assist with student understanding. Speaker Oral Text Teacher '3A ban de
tongxue, tamen you 20 jige, you 25 geren, quandui de. Tamen hen bang! hen lihai! (... kids asked sth.) dui. (English)
Last week shanggexing qu. Nimen zheyiban yao jiayou! Speaker English translation Teacher Last week the 3A class had over
20 pupils, they have 25 in total, they have been great, been brilliant, doing extremely well. Yes Last week, you guys
need to carry on Speaker Paralinguistics Teacher Teacher on chair in front of class sitting on floor in front of her
Raises left hand high and points (for emphasis) Repeats "last week" in Chinese

CONNECTING LANGUAGE WITH READING AND WRITING

Continuing to answer research question 2, we found teachers also showed evidence of their explicit linking between what they were
saying about how to read or write in the language.

Example 1: Japanese In this example the teacher points to the written word as she says it. Speaker Transcript English
translation Teacher namae no renshuu wo practice (writing) names shimasu okay? ii? okay? ii? one ichi two ni three san
four yon five go one ichi two ni Speaker Paralinguistic notes (where applicable) Teacher Holds up A4 sheet of paper and
Connect language with points Points to sheet of paper for each number Speaker Teacher reading Example 2: Japanese In this
example tracing is used to emphasise the written style of language. Traces over katakana Teacher miteinai You're not
looking miteinai You're not looking hai miteinai Excuse me, you're not looking Student Lachlan Lachlan Traces over
katakana

RESTATING

Further answersto research question 2 include teachers showing howthey use restating (Tharp etal, 2000) as a strategy eitherto
emphasise language, to correct language or to ensure understanding.

Example 1: Indonesian Teacher Tanggal berapa hari ini? lihat What date is today? Student papan tulis. Look at the board.
Teacher Satu Desember, dua ribu December, first, two sebelas thousand and eleven Repeats the student's Repeats the
student's answer answer Bagus sekali Very good Oh, ada berapa hari sampai Oh, how many days to go till Student hari
Natal? Zane Christmas? Zane Teacher Dua puluh empat Twenty four Dua puluh empat Twenty four Teacher Point to the board
Use body language to facilitate Student students' understanding Teacher Students are silent Student Teacher Restate to
enhance the acquisition of the correct answers Example 2: Japanese In this example the teacher restates a student answer
and then uses that answer to continue the classroom talk. Student natsu summer Teacher natsu, hontou? summer, really?
That's right, isn't it? sou da ne They said it at the end, didn't saigo ni uteta ne? koko ni they? Here Yes. Here hai,
Koko ne That's right, my favourite is sou, boku ga natsu ga summer ichiban suki desu. Ne? Student Teacher Restates nods
Use body language to facilitate understanding

EMBEDDING CULTURE

Yet another answer to research question 2 was how teachers also showed ways in which their classroom talk had cultural elements
embedded within it (Tharp et al, 2000).

Example 1: Indonesian In this example the teacher models a particular style of dance to support their talk. Student
Inaudible Speech Inaudible Speech Teacher Tidak, karena Tari Randai No, because Randai Dance dari Pulau Sumatra, Tari is
from Sumatra, Kecak is Kecak dari Pulau Bali from Bali Student Teacher Teacher gestures Kecak Dance Use body language to
facilitate Culture embedded in content student understanding

TRANSLANGUAGING

Teachers indicated that they moved between languages at different times in their teaching for particular purposes, thus indicating a
need for translanguaging (Garcia, 2009) even if used sparingly.

Example 1: Korean In this example the teacher reiterates a key point in English to a Year 1 class. Student uyu (milk)
Teacher uyodo deureogaji? (milk goes inside too doesn't Teacher (English) We put food in the it) Students fridge don't
we? We put food in the fridge Teacher eum sik don't we? eumskeul yeojjokega (food) (the food goes on this side) Student
Teacher Teacher Students Teacher Shows on a model Example 2: Indonesian In this example the teacher switches to include
some key words in English. Teacher Dewa, dan dewi, (English) Dewa, dan dewi, gods and gods and goddesses goddesses
Teacher Translanguaging Example 3: Chinese In this example the teacher uses both languages to restate and reinforce in
relation to classroom management. Speaker English translation Teacher Guolai, Guolai, zheli zuo Come Come and sit here
Student (English) He's gone around there He's gone around there Teacher (English) Okay Okay Teacher Kan laoshikan laoshi
Look at me, look at me Teacher (English) Okay Laoshi you qiaokeli Okay I have chocolate Speaker Paralinguistics Teacher
Student Teacher Teacher Teacher Example 4: Chinese In this example the teacher uses both languages for emphasis and
reinforcement Speaker Oral Text Teacher '3A ban de tongxue, tame nyou 20 jige, you 25 geren, quandui de. Tamen hen bang!
hen lihai! (... kids asked sth) dui (English) Last week shanggexingqu, Nmen zheyban yao]iayoul Speaker English
translation Teacher Last week the 3A class had over 20 pupils, they have 25 in total, they have been great, been
brilliant, doing extremely well, Yes Last week Last week, you guys need to carry on Speaker Paralinguistics Teacher
Teacher on chair in front of class sitting on floor in front of her Raises left hand high and points (for emphasis)
Repeats last week in Chinese

DISCUSSION

We show that the in-flight changes are the key to the CLIL classroom, and the subelements of those in-flight changes are what
separates CLIL pedagogy from more standard accomplished teaching. We also believe that the key difference between a CLIL
classroom and other languages classrooms in the NSW context is that the teaching of other KLA content comprises the whole of the
lesson, every lesson. Most languages classrooms in NSW teach language-as-object and therefore these classrooms most closely
resemble a primary classroom with delivery in English (the dominant language). The strategies being used by the teachers might be
seen in other languages classrooms but the quantity of KLA content, the speed of changes made by the teacher, and the hidden and
embedded nature of language learning, in our opinion, distinguish these classrooms from other languages classrooms. The
classroom transcripts and analysis of the physical interaction in the classrooms clearly show in-flight changes such as the switching
between the learning of content to a focus upon language, switching between the target language and English (in limited amounts)
and switching between the process of learning and classroom management. Sometimes these switches are combined and show both
a switch in focus and a switch in language simultaneously. A teacher in any classroom has to make an abundance of decisions in a
short space of time. Indeed, early scholarship on the topic of teaching focused on teacher decision making as a basic skill of teaching
Hunter,1979; Shavelson, 1973) ). Calderhead (1981)- albeit at a distance now in time-argued that teachers, rather than making
decisions, responded in more automated ways to particular cues in the classroom. Gill and Hoffman (2009) subsequently related
teacher decision-making to teacher beliefs. Regardless of the technicalities of teacher choices in the classroom, the CLIL setting
adds a further layer to the teacher's pedagogical choices and knowledge development due to the classroom requirements of teaching
content through language. These teachers have the added complexity of doing everything the primary teacher does through a new
language. Their work is measured against KLA outcomes rather than language outcomes and this distinguishes these classrooms
from other language-asobject classrooms. The teachers assess and report on KLA learning, with language learning being treated as
a by-product of this environment. The teacher has in mind both language and content as they plan and deliver their teaching, but they
must ensure that their students achieve the outcomes in the KLA before they return to their main classroom and class teacher, who
does not repeat or translate any content.

This means that teacher decision-making within the CLIL classroom involves deciding which language to use, how, and in which
ways, how to speak about the subject content in that language and how to balance the set of outcomes they need to achieve through
the new language. The teacher must decide how and when to emphasise language and how and when to overlook language to focus
on content. They must also decide when a focus on language is imperative in order to achieve the content outcomes. However the
content outcomes are at the heart of the measured learning within an educational context with a strong focus upon outcomes and
accountability (please see our forthcoming work on assessment within these contexts).

Yet in our observations, teachers appear to seamlessly move between the different demands of their CLIL classroom, thus depicting
the in-flight nature of their pedagogy through the apparently smooth manoeuvre between different foci of content, language and
processes of learning. How they do so is important to understand. We believe that there are a number of key elements within this in-
flight pedagogy which appear to make it more specifically CLIL rather than simply accomplished practice in primary teaching, or
accomplished languages teaching. The linguistic elements and the notion of translanguaging specifically make the pedagogy different
to another primary classroom. The focus upon content outcomes distinguishes it from other languages classrooms. The teachers also
exhibit a range of pedagogical strategies which emulate accomplished teaching at primary level but which are particularly essential to
the CLIL context and enhance understanding while facilitating the in-flight changes.

We believe that the elements common to all accomplished teaching include:

Element 1: The pedagogy involves 3D activities

When teaching new content, teachers frequently use 3D means to convey the conceptual knowledge to students in order not to
necessitate a verification of understanding in the first/dominant language. This type of learning occurs in many accomplished primary
classrooms, although some may operate in a more traditional manner. In the CLIL classroom almost all new content learning involves
a form of hands-on modelling, a physical demonstration, and students physically manipulating items and realia to grasp the new
concept. In one of our observations we had observed the teacher using a model of the earth in the form of a polystyrene ball with the
axis as a stick through the centre. The teacher physically manipulated the ball on the axis to demonstrate how the turning of the earth
and its rotation around the sun impacts upon day and night and the seasons, Students then undertook their own physical enactment
of the phenomenon constructing their own model. We saw such physical enactments of conceptual learning many times and with
different agegroups across the four schools.

Element 2: The pedagogy involves use of multiple semiotic resources

Within all classroom interaction we observed the use of a range of resources at all times. Language, images, gestures, music, and
extensive use of the Interactive White Board with self-designed or sourced interactive resources were at almost all times integrated
together. The classroom learning therefore relies upon the use of multiple senses to ensure conceptual understanding. Student
productive use of language follows after a multi-sensory experience of language and content which is active in terms of conceptual
development, but language use is not insisted upon until later in the learning cycle. The multiple semiotic experience is necessary to
ensure that understanding of subject content takes place. Without such deep and rich learning environments students might flounder
in picking up the required content. This emulates accomplished primary classrooms which ensure a range of approaches to learning.
In the CLIL classroom this is embedded throughout every element of each lesson.
Element 3: Concepts of space

The use of space and the movement of students and teachers appears less traditional, and is quite flexible in the CLIL classrooms
particularly in terms of "people, place and time". In other words, the students come to the front of class often to take on a student-as-
teacher role (Fielding, 2015), they undertake leadership in the learning cycle, and are apprenticed into the role of teacher/user of
content and language. This reflects what has been seen in other bilingual modes of education where the use of a studentas-teacher
role is seen as empowering the students in their language use and in developing agency in the classroom (Cohen, 2008; Cummins,
2000; Fielding, 2015). It emulates some accomplished primary classrooms but also shows elements specific to bilingual modes of
education.

The final two elements, we argue, distinguish the pedagogy as being CLIL through the manner in which they are implemented:

Element 4: The in-flight pedagogy

It is through the in-flight pedagogy that we argue the CLIL classroom differs from nonCLIL primary classrooms. In-flight changes may
occur in other accomplished classrooms, however the nature of the range of different changes in the CLIL classroom makes it distinct
from other accomplished primary school teaching through the movement between languages as an additional layer. The illustrations
of the pedagogical components of the in-flight change shown in the findings section indicate how the switches between content,
language and process occur both linguistically and physically. The teachers' use of re-stating and probing questions in the target
language facilitates the Community of Practice apprenticeship-style of learning for students in the classroom. It also enables the
teacher to develop the dual focus on content and language by reiterating content or language points at any time and clarifying
understanding of language or content at all stages of the learning cycle. The teacher use of paralinguistics enables the teacher to
focus on content learning without as much need for linguistic focus in the early stages of a new topic. By using gestures, body
language and visual support the teacher can enhance understanding of content knowledge without needing additional time to focus
on the linguistic aspects. Then through the pedagogical cycle (as depicted in Figure 1, below) the learning of language and new
vocabulary associated with the content occurs as a by-product of the learning cycle. The embedding of a focus on reading and
writing, and of intercultural elements also ensures efficient use of classroom time. Underpinning the teachers' switches is a pedagogy
which empowers the teacher to undertake translanguaging as needed to facilitate the smooth-running of the classroom. Thus
individual teachers use English (as the mainstream language) in differing amounts.

Element 5: The pedagogy involves student apprenticeship (Community of Practice)

Student development of linguistic and content knowledge follows a cyclical pattern of apprenticeship. Students gradually build up their
use of language and content within a Community of Practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) modelled and facilitated by the teacher. The
cycle involves: hearing about the content, seeing the content (image/hands-on resources), manipulating the content (make
something, do something), speaking about the content and writing about the content. Therefore there are three receptive activities
before the first productive activity in linguistic terms. We depict this in Figure 1, below, as a pedagogical cycle ensuring that engaging
with the multiple resources and repetitive use of language result in both content and language learning through an apprenticing into
the language and the content. The teacher guides and facilitates student use of language and content through multiple sources of
engagement with the topic and linguistic structures. In this way we see a Community of Practice approach to both language and
content. This emulates how bilingual development may occur in societal bilingualism (Baker & Wright, 2017; Duff, 2007) within the
classroom.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Further exploration of classroom interaction in these contexts is needed to understand the linguistic patterns in more depth. We
believe that the linguistic pattern h the pedagogy can be described as unpacking and repacking of semantic density. In other words,
technical content language is broken down into common sense everyday language, and then built back up into technical language
again, The teachers who see their students achieving well in terms of content and language appear to skilfully rebuild the language
and content complexity to a high level. Further exploration of classroom interaction is needed to understand this pattern of interaction
in more depth and to further explore the pedagogical model.

CONCLUSIONS

The teachers in these schools have developed a ground-up approach to their context needs. By exploring whattakes place in the
classroom and examining this to see common threads across four schools which each developed their own approach, we can see the
key elements of CLL practice. The key factors are an apparently seamless set of changes within the teacher interaction which we
refer to as in-flight changes. These changes enable the teachers to shift in focus between content, two languages and the processes
of learning at a fast pace and to quickly cover both content and linguistic foci. We have indicated how the teachers show five key
factors within their pedagogies that show accomplished primary pedagogy but more specifically demonstrate elements specific to a
CLIL classroom. These elements are: restating/probing; paralinguistics; connecting language with reading/writing; translanguaging;
and embedding of culture.

These elements combine together to construct a pedagogy that empowers the teacher to make in-flight changes in relation to
language, content and process in a seamless manner. They can switch between the target language and English and between a
focus on content or language learning at any time. In this way the pedagogy reflects elements of accomplished primary teaching and
accomplished languages teaching. However it is through the combination of content and language that an accomplished CLIL
pedagogy differs from accomplished primary teaching. In the CLIL pedagogical cycle content outcomes are the primary focus, but
delivery and teacher guidance of learning ensures simultaneous learning of the new language.
REFERENCES

Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations (AFMLTA). 2005. Professional Standards for Accomplished
Teaching of Languages and Cultures. Melbourne: AFMLTA/DEST. Retrieved from: http://pspl.afmlta.asn.au/doclib/Professional-
Standards-for-Accomplished-Teaching-of-Languages-and-Cultures.pdf

Calderhead, J 1981, A psychological approach to research on teachers' classroom decision-making British Educational Research
Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 51-57.

Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. & Gorter, D. 2014 Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward, Applied Linguistics, Vol. 35 (3),
pp. 243-262, Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011

Cohen, S. 2008. Making visible the invisible: Dual language teaching practicesin monolingual instructional settings PhD thesis,
University of Toronto.

Creese, A. & BIackledge, A 2010 Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching?, Modern
Language Journal, Vol, 94 (1), pp. 103-115.

Cummins, J, 1984. Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. 2000. Language, power and pedagogy:

Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Duff, P. 2007 Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues. Language Teaching, Vol. 40, pp. 309-319.

Fielding, R. 2015. Multilingualism in the Australian suburbs. Singapore: Springer.

Fielding, R. & Harbon, L, 2014. Implementing a Content and Language Integrated Learning Program (CLIL) in NSW: Teacher
perceptions of the challenges and opportunities, Babel, Vol. 49 (2), pp. 4-15.

Garcia, O. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st Century, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Gill, M, & Hoffman, G. 2009. Shared planning time: A novel context for studying teachers' discourse and beliefs about learning and
instruction. Teachers College Record, Vol 111 (50), pp. 1242-1273.

Hajek, J & Y. Slaughter. 2015. Challenging the monolingual mindset: Reconsidering Australia's language potential. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.

Hunter, M. 1979. Teaching is decision making, Educational Leadership, Vol 37 (1), pp. 62-67.

Kramsch, C. & Whiteside, A. 2008. Language ecology in multilingual settings. Towards a theory of symbolic competence, Applied
Linguistics, Vol. 29 (4), pp. 645-671.

Lave, J &Wenger, E 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, G., Jones, B. & Baker, C. 2012. Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and contextualisation,

Educational Research and Evaluation, Vol. 18 (7), pp 655-670.

Lorenzo, F 2008- Instructional discourse in bilingual settings: An empirical study of linguistic adjustments in Content and Language
Integrated Learning, Language Learning Journal, Vol 36(1), pp 21-33.

Marzano, J. 2017, The new art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction Bloomington: Solution
Tree Press.

May, S. 2014. The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education. New York, NY: Routledge

Saunders, W. & O'Brien, G. 2006. Oral language. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating
English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence New York Cambridge University Press, pp. 14-63.

Sayer, P. 2013. Translanguaging, TexMex, and bilingual pedagogy: Emergent bilinguals learning through the vernacular, TESOL
Quarterly, Vol 47(1), pp 63-88.

Shavelson, R.J. 1973. What is the basic teaching skill? Journal of Teacher Education, Vol 24 (2), pp. 144-151.

Siraj, l & Taggart, B. 2014. An exploration of effective pedagogy in primary schools: Evidence from research, London: Pearson.

Siraj-Blatchford, l., Shepherd, D., Melhuish, E., Taggart, B., Sammons, P. & Sylva, K. 2010. Effective primary pedagogical strategies
in English and Mathematics in Key Stage 2: A study of Year 5 classroom practice from the EPPSE 3-16 longitudinal study, London,
UK: Department for Children, Schools and Families. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183324/DFE-RR129 pdf

Tharp, R, Estrada, P, Dalton, S., & Yamauchi, L. 2000. Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony
Boulder: Westview Press.

Ruth Fielding, University of Technology Sydney

Lesley Harbon, University of Technology Sydney

Lesley Harbon is Professor and Head of Schools of International Studies and Education at the University of Technology Sydney. Her
collaborative research with Dr Ruth Fielding on CLIL and bilingual education has been ongoing since 2005. Her linguistic landscape
and language teacher education research are also continuing. Lesley supervises and examines masters and doctoral research
projects. Lesley has presented a number of keynote addresses to professional language education organisations over the pastten
years.

Dr Ruth Fielding is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Technology Sydney where she manages the French and Francophone
studies program. Ruth is an active researcher with a focus on multilingualism, bilingual education and CLIL, language and identity
and language learning and teaching. Ruth has worked at the University of Canberra and the University of Sydney in the area of
language teacher education. Prior to an academic career she was a school teacher of French and German. Ruth's book
Multilingualism in the Australian Suburbs is available as an e-book and as a hardback book from Springer.

Please Note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright restrictions.

Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2018 Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations

http://www.afmlta.asn.au
Source Citation (MLA 9th Edition)
Fielding, Ruth, and Lesley Harbon. "AN EXPLORATION OF CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED PEDAGOGY." Babel, vol.
52, no. 2, July-Aug. 2018, pp. 32+. Gale Academic OneFile,
link.gale.com/apps/doc/A549157845/AONE?u=monash&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=c3c70e81. Accessed 31 Mar. 2023.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A549157845