Dr David Bainton - LSTTof!instruction!from!Kiswahili!to!English.!Low!levels!of ......

1

Learning in translation: developing a language supportive pedagogy for social justice

1 ABSTRACT

The paper draws on the two-‐year Language Supportive Teaching and Textbooks research project (LSTT). This project developed a language supportive pedagogy and related teaching materials for Tanzanian secondary schools.

Like many developing countries, Tanzanian secondary schools offer pupils a complex multilingual context for learning. This is particularly acute as students transition from Kiswahili medium primary schooling to English medium secondary schooling where they must simultaneously negotiate both subject and language learning.

The LSTT research project developed a pedagogic approach to language in secondary form 1 that not only makes subject learning more accessible, but also enables subject learning to support language development.

The paper argues that a linguistic focus for pedagogic development inevitably shifts the centre of control towards the local. This in enabled not only through its recognition of and response to genuine contextual need, but also through the inescapable relocation of pedagogic expertise from the western expert to the classroom bilingual teacher. As such, it offers a more engaged, more sustainable and more tangible approach to educational development.

Foregrounding the practices of pupils working with and multiple languages enables us to see that many classrooms are multilingual spaces where, in a very real sense, it is not one language or another, but translation itself that is the medium of learning. Recognizing this offers much hope for the development of social justice, precisely because the negotiated and unfinished nature of translation creates the potential for classroom knowledge to be articulating in new and more meaningful ways.

Dr David Bainton University of Bristol

[email protected]

UKFIET 2015 Conference Paper

INTRODUCTION

The Language Supportive Teaching and Textbooks in Tanzania project (LSTT)1 is directed at supporting students making the transitioning from standard seven of primary school to Form 1 of secondary school in Tanzania. For a large majority of students this involves a transition in the language of instruction from Kiswahili to English. Low levels of language proficiency in English is known to be a major barrier to learning in secondary schools Tanzania (Arthur, 2001; Oyoo, 2004; Rea-‐Dickins et al. 2009; Brock-‐Utne et al., 2010; Rubagumya et al., 2011).

Previous research led by the University of Dodoma developed bilingual classroom strategies for teachers of Standard 7 and Form 1 (Rubagumya et al. 2011). In the course of this research it was noted that textbooks in Tanzanian secondary schools are too difficult for Form 1 students to read. This finding was replicated for primary school textbooks in Ghana and in Rwanda (Afitska et al, 2011). The situation is similar for the majority of students in upper primary and secondary schools in sub saharan Africa who are expected to learn in a European language that is not their first language, that they do not speak at home and that they hear very little in their local communities. Despite this, most of the textbooks available to students do not take this into account and are written using a level and complexity of language beyond the competence of most students.

This project is addressing this by developing three form 1 textbooks (one each in the subjects of English, Mathematics and Biology2) that the majority of Form 1 students in Tanzania will be able to read. Textbooks support teaching and learning but they do not work alone to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Textbooks designed to be accessible to students will have the largest impact when they are in the hands of teachers, who are able to implement teaching and learning strategies that support language acquisition. The textbooks have therefore been developed as part of a wider Language supportive pedagogy (LSP). This LSP has been developed to support both content and language learning goals. The project has been working with teachers to develop and trial these materials across three regions in Tanzania -‐ Dodoma, Lindi and Morogoro3.

Section 1 of the paper describes how the project has drawn on Socio cultural views of learning together with theories of language learning, to develop a ‘Language in Learning’ approach able to locate and place centre stage the role of language In student learning in Tanzania. Section 2 shows how the project has used this approach to develop a language supportive pedagogy, materials and strategies. Section 3 analyses this approach from the point of view of social Justice, and makes an argument for why this LSP can be understood as offering a mechanisms to promote social Justice within educational development.

1 LSTT is a collaboration between three universities and the Tanzania Institute of Education (TIE). The university departments are the Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol; the College of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Faculty of Education, University of Dodoma; and the Institute for Educational Development, Aga Khan University East Africa Campus.

2 The project focuses on English, Mathematics and Biology because these are amongst priority subjects within Tanzanian education policy 3 In 2011, these three regions were ranked 21st, 12th and 13th out of 21

1 regions for their Form 4 exams results. In the same

regions 53%, 34% and 29% respectively of households fall below the poverty line (United Republic of Tanzania (URT), 2005). The majority of learners in these rural regions speak a local vernacular language (not Kiswahili), making English a third language for students. Each region includes rural districts where girls’ participation in secondary education is much lower than boys and less than 1% of girls completing Form 4 qualify for the next educational level.


SECTION 1: LEARNING IN TRANSLATION - THEORISING LEARNING IN TANZANIAN SECONDARY CLASSROOMS

Form 1 secondary classrooms in Tanzania are functionally bilingual. While English is the formal medium of Instruction, the low level of English language of many students at Form 1 means that teachers find themselves using Kiswahili in the classroom. As Clegg & Afitska note, not only is code switching (as short term alternation between Languages) common, but so are other forms of Language alternation,

There may, for example, be long stretches of monolingual teacher talk in either language, within a code-‐switching environment. Alternation also sometimes takes place according to forms of interaction: for example, L2-‐medium teacher-‐talk in the plenary classroom may give way to monolingual pair or group activity in L1 which continues for some time until the teacher resumes plenary interaction in the MoI. (Clegg & Afitska, 2011: 62)

With Form 1 being the year of transition from Kiswahili to English as the MoI, students are also attempting to learn in English by building on knowledge that they have in Kiswahili. This places additional challenges to students as they are engaged in multiple translations through their learning process – both from new terms in English into Kiswahili, but also pre-‐existing knowledge into English. In a very real sense, in this year in particular, teaching is characterised by taking place between and across both languages where learning is taking place in translation.

Any theorising of learning therefore needs to recognise this particular complex social and linguistic context. Our approach has drawn on three interlinked literatures – i) Socio-‐cultural Theory, ii) CLIL (Content and Language Integrated learning, and iii) Linguistic theories of learning.

The project takes a broadly Socio-‐cultural perspective on learning. This approach is helpful in drawing attention to the specificity of learning within this Tanzanian context -‐ socially, politically, culturally – and the sets of resources that frame the learning process. As Coyle notes, what Social Cultural theory demands is that :

‘any analysis of bilingual education must take account of situational and context variables so that developments are interpreted through a sociocultural lens’ (Coyle 2007: 543)

Understandings gained through this analysis are also sympathetic with attempts to transform teacher pedagogy towards Child centred and Activity based approaches. As will be discussed later, tentative findings from the project are that a LSP is not only sympathetic with these broader pedagogic efforts, but have the potential to be a mechanism of supporting their inclusion in the classroom.

From a sociocultural perspective ‘knowledge is understood as a historically constructed, culturally and socially contextualised entity instantiated in language’. (Moat 2010:39). As such, sociocultural perspectives draw attention to the ways that language is central to the learning process, where from Vygotsky, the process of internalisation of collective behaviour is mediated by semiotic tools, within which ‘language is one of the most important semiotic tools’ (Swain 2000:103).


The second literature the project has drawn upon is that looking at programmes where content and language are taught together. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is less a theoretical perspective and more a curriculum approach where content is delivered through a target second language (principally in a European context, and through English). The aim of CLIL being to achieve as effective content learning and enhanced language learning compared to teaching subjects in the mother tongue.

There are many helpful similarities between the CLIL approach and the situation in Tanzania. While the aims and context on Tanzanian Language policy locates English as the MoI differently to the Foreign Language objectives of European CLIL classrooms, Tanzanian Classrooms are indeed places where language and Content learning are both taking place, and where content is being taught through a foreign language.

The CLIL literature has much to offer in terms of thinking through how language and content learning goals can be integrated within one lesson. However, as Clegg (2003:89) notes, it is possible to differentiate between language-‐led CLIL, which ‘imports parts of subjects [and] highlights language development’, and subject-‐led projects, which ‘may well exclude language teachers and explicit language teaching’. (ibid)

The complex pedagogical interaction between linguistic and content learning goals is highlighted by Swain (1998), who notes that,

‘Good content teaching is not necessarily good language teaching... content teaching needs to guide students’ progressive use of the full functional range of language, and to support their understanding of how language form is related to meaning in subject area material. The integration of language, subject area knowledge, and thinking skills requires systematic monitoring and planning. (Swain, 1998: 68)

Swain is highlighting the fact that not only do different subject have very different pedagogic approaches, they also have different ways that language functions within them. This suggests a key point for the development of a LSP -‐ that although their will be commonalities across subjects, each curriculum subject will inevitably need to develop its own specific approach through ‘making language and content learning explicit and transparent, defining subject specific skills and thus enabling the learners to bridge the gap between the learners’ conceptual and cognitive capacities and the learners’ linguistic level. (Otten, 1993: 73).

The third theoretical foundation takes Language not as a medium that learning takes places through, but rather seeing all learning as language learning. As Halliday puts it,

Language is not a domain of human knowledge (except in the special context of linguistics, where it becomes an object of scientific study); language is the essential condition of knowing, the process by which experience becomes knowledge. (Halliday, 1993:94)

Writing many years before CLIL gained prevalence, Halliday is pointing towards a linguistic theory of learning, where, by ‘seeing learning itself as a semiotic process: learning is learning to mean, and to expand one’s meaning potential. (Halliday, 1993:113).


This position is perhaps akin to the inevitable conclusion of the integration of language and content learning where we can ‘transcend such an understanding that conceptualizes language and curricular content as separate reified entities and instead think of them as one process. (Dalton-‐Puffer 2011:196).

These three literatures together outline a repertoire of terms that sensitise an approach to developing a language sensitive pedagogy for form 1 Tanzanian classroom. In the next section, I turn to some of the more specific pedagogical insights on these theories.

SECTION 2 - DEVELOPING A LANGUAGE SUPPORTIVE PEDAGOGY The theoretical repertoire in section 1 suggests a range of pedagogies and classroom interactions that offer possibilities to support learning in this bilingual context. I will briefly describe some key orientations below:

A focus on student ‘output’

In using the term ‘output’, Swain (2000) focuses on the importance of not only managing the level and complexity of the linguistic environment that a student has to operate in, but also on the quality of her ‘outputs’ -‐ speaking, writing, utterance, verbalisation and collaborative dialogue -‐ in achieving deeper learning. (Swain 2000:103). Swain’s ‘output hypothesis’ claims that

“only the self-‐regulated production of utterances that encode learners’ intended meanings forces them to actively process morphosyntactic aspects of the foreign language, thereby expanding their active linguistic repertoire and achieving deeper entrenchment of what they already know. (Dalton-‐Puffer 2011:194)

This hypothesis suggests that a language supportive pedagogy needs to place students own use of language as central to any successful learning – where students are given the time and resources to practice different forms of utterance. In particular Swain places great importance on the role of collaborative dialogue where students are given the chance to speak around and with each other as they come of meaning,

[And] what is collaborative dialogue? It is knowledge building dialogue. […] it is where language use and language learning can co-‐occur. […]It is a cognitive activity and it is a social activity (Swain, 2000:97)

A focus on Pre and post task talk

Although task based task gives a focus for meaningful linguistic interaction and a functional use of language, agreeing with earlier work by seedhouse (1999), Nikula finds task-‐based language by itself has

“a tendency towards minimalization and indexicality” (seedhouse, 1999:152) and argues that it may be a problem for L2 pedagogy because such interactions do not show evidence of students linguistic skill being stretched or challenged. (Nikula 2015:6)

This suggests the crucial role of pre-‐ and post-‐task phases that ‘complement hands-‐on phases in providing more opportunities for engagement in subject-‐specific language’. (Nikula 2015:12)


A focus on exploratory talk

Pierce and Giles (2008) in developing a typology of classroom talk gives us a language to differentiate the different types and functions of classroom interaction -‐ i) Social talk (talk connecting students to each other), ii) Meta talk (awareness of talk as a tool for learning), iii) critical talk (recognising and questioning exiting knowledge, expert talk (instantiating community knowledge) and v) exploratory talk (ET). While they each play key roles in the classroom, it is exploratory talk, that is perhaps most crucial for learning, especially in a linguistic setting such as Tanzanian Form 1 classrooms, where,

‘In ET both language and content learning goals come together as learners draw on growing awareness and ability. As subject-‐related questions are formed, students draw on new terminology; to form understanding learners are required to engage with appropriate discourse’. (Moat 2010:42)

This type of exploratory talk is what that is

‘hesitant and incomplete because it enables the speaker to try out ideas, to hear how they sound, to see what others make of them, to arrange information and ideas into different patterns” (Barnes, 2008:5, quoted in Moat 2010:41)

A focus on structured writing mediating between form and meaning.

Halliday’s linguistic theory of learning recognises that learning needs to take place through ‘the articulation between the negotiation of form and that of meaning, which are often considered as separate procedures’. (Gajo 2007: 563). In other words, that learning needs both exploratory, meaning making, object oriented every day discussion, and the formalised, grammatically structured disciplined language of subjects. He notes that,

Teachers often have a powerful intuitive understanding that their pupils need to learn multimodally, using a wide variety of linguistic registers: both those of the written language, which locate them in the metaphorical world of things, and those of the spoken language, which relate what they are learning to the everyday world of doing and happening. The one foregrounds structure and stasis, the other foregrounds function and flow. (Halliday, 1993:112)

For the development of a LSP, this suggests a balance between spoken and written work, and a structured translation between different modalities and forms of talk, such as supporting exploratory talk with scaffolded written tasks

Out of these and other directions that the literature has suggested has come on the one hand a set of educational materials that seek to promote and support a set of pedagogic practices that embody these insights, and on the other a set of strategies that teachers can readily adapt to shift their classrooms to ones that are more language supportive.

I will first outline some of the Language supportive strategies and then give some examples of the materials that have been developed to support classroom practice.


Language Supportive Strategies

1.1 Teaching from the Front: • If students have already studied the topic in primary school, they can only express their

knowledge in Kiswahili. Therefore, use Kiswahili to ask them questions about their previous learning.

• Use diagrams and pictures to illustrate concepts. Use the pictures in the book, or draw them on the board.

• Write key concepts on the board. Repeat them and get students to say them. • Translate new concepts into Kiswahili. Draw attention to those words in the text. • Refer to the glossary in the book. Encourage students to use the glossaries. • Use what students know already. Some of this knowledge will be in Kiswahili or a

mother tongue. Get students to access their prior learning by asking them to talk in a vernacular language.

• Check regularly whether students understand. Ask questions to check this. Short answers (e.g. yes/no questions) are easy to answer. If you ask questions that require a longer answer and the learners cannot give it in English, accept their answers in Kiswahili. You can then translate them into English.

• Use Kiswahili strategically to help learning. For instance to get the meaning of key concepts.

• Remember that Form I students have to concentrate very hard to listen to English. If you talk for a long time in English, it will be difficult for them to keep focused on what you are saying.

1.2 When students talk: • Demonstrate to students how an activity should be done, and then ask them to do it. • If students cannot talk in pairs or groups in English about a concept, ask them to do it

first in Kiswahili. As they finish, ask one or two pairs or groups to report in English what they have said. Give them a few minutes to decide what they will say in English. Help them with the useful vocabulary

• When students work in pairs or groups, go round and listen. Help them where necessary.

• When students talk in English, try not to correct their English while they are speaking. Correct after they have finished, but without discouraging them.

• Never humiliate a student because he or she cannot talk English and do not allow students to humiliate or laugh at another student’s English. Mutual respect should be part of the classroom culture. This will give the students confidence to try out English.


1.3 When Students read the textbook • Ask students to work briefly in pairs or small groups and say what they know about the

topic. Put a question on the board for them to answer. It doesn’t matter if what they say is incorrect. A three minutes discussion will be enough. Then ask them to read the text.

• If there is a picture or diagram to accompany the text, get them to look at this picture or diagram before they read. Students can talk about it in English or Kiswahili. This willhelp them to understand the text in English.

• At first, ask students to look at the glossary before reading the text.As they get better at reading, students can refer to the glossary as they read.

• Ask text-‐based questions before students read the text to give them focus and extra motivation.

• Fill-‐in-‐the-‐blanks activities make students think about what they are reading and help them to understand the meaning.

• When students have read the text, ask them to talk briefly (e.g. 3 minutes) in pairs in Kiswahili to check whether they agree about what they understood.

• Get a few students to report to the whole class about what they understood. If a learner has understood the text but can’t explain it in English, accept an answer in Kiswahili, and translate for the class.

1.4 When students write: • Demonstrate to students how an activity should be done, and then ask the students to

do it. • It is useful for students to sometimes work in pairs when they write in English. They can

discuss how to construct sentences, which words to use, how to spell, etc. It is good if they discuss this in English, but it is just as good if they discuss in Kiswahili

• When students write, go round and read. Help them where necessary. • When they have finished writing, it is sometimes useful to get one or two students to

loudly read out their sentences to the whole class, or even to dictate a sentence to be put on the board. However, this kind of activity can take time, so keep it short.


Language supportive classroom materials

Perhaps the best place to see the differences between the ways that the linguistic and content pedagogies articulate differently for different subjects is in the classroom materials. Baseline surveys for each subject led to an analysis of the specific challenges each faced. Workshops between teachers, teacher educators, curriculum developers and linguists led to the writing of one chapter for each subject which was piloted in a range of school within the three regions. Teachers and pupils trailling these chapters were then interviews and classes using the materials observed An analysis of this research data led to the development of further modified chapters, which are, as I write being trialled a second time.

Pages from each of the latest versions of the materials are given below:

Fig 1. Sample Biology page 1


Fig 2. Sample Biology page 2


Fig 3. Sample Maths page 1


Fig 4. Sample Maths page 2


Fig 5. Sample English page 1


Fig 6. Sample English page 2


SECTION 3: LANGAUGE SUPORTIVE PEDAGOGY FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE In the final section I want to draw an analytic lens to the ways that such an approach has the potential to not only offer better learning outcomes and student experiences, but to also reconfigure classrooms in ways that promote social justice.

It has been a positive feature of the project to date that teachers using the trial materials have found these to be a helpful and easy to use resource. As one teacher noted:

we realized that even the teacher has been given a chance to use Kiswahili contrary to the books we have been using. Therefore, the use of Kiswahili enables all students to have the ability to understand what is being taught in class and not only a few students. (English teacher)

In part, of course this is not unexpected. As noted at the start of the paper, existing classroom materials have tended to pay little attention to language demands, and having materials that are easy for students and teachers to use and follow will naturally be welcomed. However, this is not the whole story. Form 1 classrooms are for teachers, as they are for students, bilingual spaces, where teachers must constantly translate between their own lingusitically coded knowledges. Teachers must operating bilingually within a policy context that is officially English medium, and where use of Kiswahili, though a pragmatic necessity, has previously had unclear official pedagogic status4. Teachers have welcomed these materials as recognition of the reality of their professional challenges, and as a validation of the use of Kiswahili as part of effective teaching.

As the research described earlier in the paper notes, positive outcomes are not easy to achieve, even in resource rich European environments. Creating classrooms where student talk is genuinely exploratory and collaborative, or where teachers manage to structure pre and post task activities to formalise language offers some clear challenges to wider implementation of these approaches. At the same time, and while recognising the danger that teachers see a Language supportive pedagogy as validation of a status quo, there is much potential in an intervention that so clearly seeks to offer solutions to problem that teachers have to address on a daily basis.

The project has framed its interventions in terms of Teaching strategies to highlight that what is being called for here is a focus on the strategic use of Kiswahili within classes. In very real ways, a LSP offers teachers a validation of their existing bilingual skill, and a way to use in slightly different and more thoughtful, and planned ways. The materials in turn offer a structure for the transposition of this skill set. The ongoing pilot research will further give data on this, but evidence to date is positive.

The wider implications of this as a development project are also encouraging. In validating teacher expertise as translators and bilingual mediators, the locus of pedagogic expertise is, at least potentially, also crucially relocated -‐ no longer away from the classroom, and of practice, but remaining – as strategic bilingual practitioners within classrooms. The project has been, and will continue to work towards building up a community of practice, (Lave and Wenger, 1991). It is hoped that such a community (of bilingual practitioners) will prove to be an authentic one where workable strategies can be explored and understood in situ, and developed through practice.

The CLIL research also shows that placing language learning at the heart of classroom practice has

4 The LSTT project has been working closely with the Tanzanian Institute of Education (TIE), who have responsibility for textbook and curriculum matters. The trial materials are pubilshed by TIE, and this partnertship is a positive step towards a shifting policy context that allows Kiswahili to have a more central role in classroom practice.


the potential to also transform interrelationships within the classroom – both between students, and between students and teachers. As Swain notes, ‘through negotiation, comprehensibility is achieved as interlocutors repair and rephrase for the conversational partners. (Swain, 2000:97). While facts offer a closed, determinate relationship to processes of knowing, the potential of learning in translation within a bilingual context is that, in drawing attention to the process of formation of meaning through language, students become engaged in a process of negotiation. Where such opportunities are offered, this negotiation of meaning becomes a central feature of classroom interaction, inviting student to participate in exploratory talk and collaborative knowledge building. The possibilities that this holds for students in rural under-‐resourced Tanzanaian classrooms is that their learning may take place within a context of greater epistenic equality.


REFERENCES

Afitska, O., Ankomah, Y., Clegg, J., Kiliku, P., Osei-‐Amankwah, L. & Rubagumya, C. et al. (2013), ‘Dilemmas of language choice in education in Tanzania and Ghana’ in Tikly, L. & Barrett, A.M. (2013) Education Quality and Social Justice in the Global South: Challenges for policy practice and research, London: Routledge. pp. 154-‐167.

Arthur, J. (2001), ‘Perspectives on educational language policy and its implementation in African classrooms: A comparative study of Botswana and Tanzania’, Compare 31(3): 347-‐362.

Barnes, D. (2008),‘Exploratory talk for learning’, in N. Mercer and S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school, London: Sage.

Barrett, A.M. (2014), ‘Language, learning and textbooks: Findings from baseline survey of Form 1 students and teachers’. LSTT Research Brief no. 1. Bristol: Language Supportive Teaching and Textbooks in Tanzania (LSTT).

Barrett, A.M., Mtana, N., Osaki, K. & Rubagumya, C. (2014), ‘Baseline Report. Bristol: Language Supportive Teaching and Textbooks in Tanzania (LSTT)’. February 2014.

Brock-‐Utne, B., Desai, Z., Qorro, M. & Pitman, A. (Ed.s) (2010), Language of Instruction in Tanzania and South Africa -‐ Highlights from a Project. Rotterdam: Sense.

Bruner, J. (1999) Folk pedagogies. In J. Leach and B. Moon (eds) Learners and Pedagogy. London: Paul Chapman Publishing/Open University Press.

Cenoz, J.(2013),’Discussion: towards an educational perspective in CLIL language policy and pedagogical practice’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Vol16(3): 389-‐394

Clegg, J. (2013) Course for textbook writers, editors and illustrators. Bristol: LSTT. July 2013. Clegg, J. & Afitska, O. (2011), ‘Teaching and learning in two languages in African classrooms’,

Comparative Education 47(1):61-‐77. Coyle, D. (2007), ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a Connected Research

Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Vol 10(5), 543-‐562

Dalton-‐Puffer, C. (2011), ‘Content-‐and-‐Language Integrated Learning: From Practice to Principles?’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2011), Vol 31, 182–204.

Dalton-‐Puffer, C. (2008), ‘Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): current research from Europe’, in Werner Delanoy, W. & Volkmann, L. (eds.) Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching. Heidelberg: Carl Winter

De Graaff R. , Jan Koopman, G. , Anikina, Y. & Westhoff, G. (2007), ‘An Observation Tool for Effective L2 Pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Vol 10(5): 603-‐624

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gajo, L. (2007). Linguistic knowledge and subject knowledge: How does bilingualism contribute to subject development? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3) 563–581.

Hall, J.K. 2004. “Practicing speaking” in Spanish: Lessons from a high school foreign language classroom. In Boxer, D. and Cohen, A. (eds.), 68-‐87.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-‐based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116.

Lantolf, J. (ed.) (2000) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Mariotti, Cristina. 2006. Negotiated interactions and repair patterns in CLIL settings. VIEWS 13 Special CLIL Issue, 33-‐40.

Moat, J.(2010), ‘The Integrated Nature of CLIL: A Sociocultural Perspective’, International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (3)

Nikula, T. (2007). The IRF pattern and space for interaction: comparing CLIL and EFL classrooms. In: Dalton and Smit (eds.). Nikula,T. 2006. CLIL as student empowerment? Observations on language use in Finnish CLIL Classrooms. Paper presented at the ESSE8 Conference in London, 29 August 2006.

Nikula, T.,(2015) Hands-‐on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-‐specific language use and learning System

Otten, E. (1993) In Workshop 12A Bilingual education in Secondary Schools: learning and teaching non-‐language subjects through a foreign language. Report CDCC European Commission.

Oyoo, S.O. (2007), ‘Rethinking proficiency in the language of instruction (English) as a factor in the difficulty of school science’, International Journal of Learning 14(4): 231-‐241.

Pierce, K. and Gilles, C. (2008), ‘From exploratory talk to critical conversations’, in N. Mercer and S. Hodgkinson (ed.s), Exploring Talk in Schools, (37-‐54). SAGE publications: London

Rea-‐Dickins, P., Yu, G. & Afitska, O. (2009), ‘The consequences of examining through an unfamiliar language of instruction and its impact for school-‐age learners in sub-‐Saharan African school systems’. In Taylor, L & Weir, C (eds) Language Testing Matters: the social and educational impact of language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubagumya, C., Afitska, O., Clegg, J., Kiliku, P., Mtana, N. & Tarimo, E. (2011) Language and literacy project country report: Tanzania. Bristol: EdQual. June 2011.

Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-‐based interaction. ELT Journal, 53, 149e156. Swain, M. (1998) Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second

language learning. TESL Canada Journal 6 (1), 68-‐83. Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative

dialogue. In: J. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dr David Bainton - LSTTof!instruction!from!Kiswahili!to!English.!Low!levels!of ......

Documents

Transcript of Dr David Bainton - LSTTof!instruction!from!Kiswahili!to!English.!Low!levels!of ......