File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

Supplementary

Conference Paper: How Much L1 is Too Much? – Students’ Abilities, Language Use and Classroom Interaction

TitleHow Much L1 is Too Much? – Students’ Abilities, Language Use and Classroom Interaction
Authors
Issue Date2013
PublisherNanyang Technology University.
Citation
The 9th International Symposium on Bilingualism (ISB9), Singapore, 10-13 June 2013. In The 9th International Symposium on Bilingualism (ISB9) Abstract Booklet, 2013, p. 394 How to Cite?
AbstractOwing to the overwhelming preference for English-medium education (i.e. CLIL), many secondary schools in Hong Kong adopt English as their medium of instruction. Cummins (2000) proposed that to enjoy the benefits of learning L2 and content subjects simultaneously, students must attain a threshold level of L2 when intensive exposure to L2 begins. Otherwise, students will suffer from linguistic, cognitive and academic disadvantages. Therefore, in CLIL classrooms where students’ L2 proficiency has not reached the threshold level, teachers may resort to using some L1 to assist students in grasping specific technical terms and abstract concepts. Though it has been argued that the use of L1 may undermine the effectiveness of CLIL in students’ L2 learning, it is a “realistic” approach and “pragmatic” solution to the learning problems caused by students’ limited L2 proficiency, particularly in EFL contexts (Lin, 2000). This study collected data from 30 Grade 10 lessons in Hong Kong classrooms, where English was the “official” medium of instruction, yet students’ L2 proficiency varied considerably. Using both quantitative and qualitative analyses, this study shows that when teaching students with limited L2 proficiency, teachers used a significant proportion of L1 in lessons to explain the subject content and interact with students. They also used L1 to develop students’ L2 metalinguistic awareness. In contrast, with students highly proficient in L2, teachers used L1 for less than 5% of the lesson time and they mainly used L1 to draw on students’ daily life experiences when explaining abstract concepts, or to create humorous atmosphere in lessons. This study thus shows that teachers made use of students’ existing linguistic repertoires in different ways to maintain classroom interaction and to achieve both content teaching and language teaching in CLIL.
DescriptionConference Theme: Multilingualism
Colloquia Session: Beyond Linguistic Purism: Designing Multilingual and Multimodal 'Content and Language Integrated Learning' (CLIL) Frameworks for EFL Students
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/185090
ISBN

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLo, YYen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-07-15T10:29:59Z-
dc.date.available2013-07-15T10:29:59Z-
dc.date.issued2013en_US
dc.identifier.citationThe 9th International Symposium on Bilingualism (ISB9), Singapore, 10-13 June 2013. In The 9th International Symposium on Bilingualism (ISB9) Abstract Booklet, 2013, p. 394en_US
dc.identifier.isbn9789810767587-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/185090-
dc.descriptionConference Theme: Multilingualism-
dc.descriptionColloquia Session: Beyond Linguistic Purism: Designing Multilingual and Multimodal 'Content and Language Integrated Learning' (CLIL) Frameworks for EFL Students-
dc.description.abstractOwing to the overwhelming preference for English-medium education (i.e. CLIL), many secondary schools in Hong Kong adopt English as their medium of instruction. Cummins (2000) proposed that to enjoy the benefits of learning L2 and content subjects simultaneously, students must attain a threshold level of L2 when intensive exposure to L2 begins. Otherwise, students will suffer from linguistic, cognitive and academic disadvantages. Therefore, in CLIL classrooms where students’ L2 proficiency has not reached the threshold level, teachers may resort to using some L1 to assist students in grasping specific technical terms and abstract concepts. Though it has been argued that the use of L1 may undermine the effectiveness of CLIL in students’ L2 learning, it is a “realistic” approach and “pragmatic” solution to the learning problems caused by students’ limited L2 proficiency, particularly in EFL contexts (Lin, 2000). This study collected data from 30 Grade 10 lessons in Hong Kong classrooms, where English was the “official” medium of instruction, yet students’ L2 proficiency varied considerably. Using both quantitative and qualitative analyses, this study shows that when teaching students with limited L2 proficiency, teachers used a significant proportion of L1 in lessons to explain the subject content and interact with students. They also used L1 to develop students’ L2 metalinguistic awareness. In contrast, with students highly proficient in L2, teachers used L1 for less than 5% of the lesson time and they mainly used L1 to draw on students’ daily life experiences when explaining abstract concepts, or to create humorous atmosphere in lessons. This study thus shows that teachers made use of students’ existing linguistic repertoires in different ways to maintain classroom interaction and to achieve both content teaching and language teaching in CLIL.-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherNanyang Technology University.-
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Symposium on Bilingualismen_US
dc.titleHow Much L1 is Too Much? – Students’ Abilities, Language Use and Classroom Interactionen_US
dc.typeConference_Paperen_US
dc.identifier.emailLo, YY: yuenyilo@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLo, YY=rp01635en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros215343en_US
dc.identifier.spage394en_US
dc.identifier.epage394en_US
dc.publisher.placeSingapore-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats