‘zip your lips’ or ‘keep quiet’: main teachers' and language assistants' classroom...

‘Zip Your Lips’ or ‘Keep Quiet’: MainTeachers’ and Language Assistants’Classroom Discourse in CLIL SettingsEMMA DAFOUZUniversidad Complutense de MadridEnglish Language and LinguisticsCiudad Universitaria s/n28040 Madrid, SpainEmail: [email protected]

ABBIE HIBLERKaplan International CenterHarvard Square39 JFK StCambridge, MA 02138 USAEmail: [email protected]

Each year more than 800 native English-speaking language assistants are brought into Madrid’sbilingual/Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) primary schools to assist local teachersand promote students’ foreign language and intercultural competence. In spite of these high numbersand the cost to the bilingual programme, no specific guidelines are provided by the bilingual programmeadministrators regarding how the assistants should collaborate with the local teachers in the classroom.This article sets out to describe how these two different groups of educators interact in the classroom,how they distribute their corresponding teaching roles, and how these roles are articulated linguistically.Drawing on three broad strands of literature, namely (a) Systemic Functional Linguistics and thedistinction between instructional and regulative classroom registers, (b) Discourse Analysis andclassroom discourse functions, and (c) Second Language Acquisition and interactional strategies, thisstudy analyses team teaching situations and provides a description of the discursive practices enacted.The data suggest qualitative differences in the type of discourse produced by both sets of participantswhile interpretations are offered in the light of native and nonnative speaker status, novice and expertteacher profiles, and possible intercultural differences. In closing we briefly discuss some of theimplications for team teaching practice in bilingual/CLIL programmes across contexts.

Keywords: classroom discourse; CLIL; discourse functions; language assistants; Spain

SINCE THE 1990s, MULTILINGUALISM HASbeen at the heart of European policies as a meansfor promoting European integration. A whitepaper published in 1995 by the Commission ofthe European Communities, entitled Teachingand learning: Towards the learning society, placedgreat importance on foreign/second languagelearning and teaching, by proposing the formula2 þ 1 (i.e., two foreign languages þ mothertongue) as a priority strategy in education(Grenfell, 2002). Drawing principally on lessons

from the Canadian immersion programmes (seeGenesee, 1987, 1994; Lyster, 2007), the EU haspromoted a pedagogical paradigm where curric-ular contents and foreign/second languages (L2)are integrated in order to create a dual focus onboth language and content. This approach,known as Content and Language IntegratedLearning (CLIL), has become synonymous withbilingual education in the EU (Dafouz &Guerrini, 2009).1

Within this context, Spain is one of thecountries that has extensively implemented vari-ous CLIL-style programmes in primary andsecondary public school settings. This measurehas involved a high number of institutions,attracted enormous interest from all stakehold-ers, and served as stimulus for a wide range of

The Modern Language Journal, 97, 3, (2013)DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12026.x0026-7902/13/655–669 $1.50/0© 2013 The Modern Language Journal

topical research (see Dalton–Puffer, Nikula, &Smit, 2011; Ruiz de Zarobe & Jimenez Catalan,2009). Within this national school project, theMadrid Autonomous Community (ComunidadAutonoma de Madrid or CAM) committed consid-erable additional resources in order to enhanceCLIL classrooms, among them complementinglocal teachers with native English-speaking assis-tants. However, in spite of the scale of the plan(with over eight hundred foreign assistantsworking in the Madrid area) and its pedagogical,cultural, and linguistic implications, the imple-mentation of this team teaching approach in theSpanish classroom settings is to date under-researched (but see Hibler, 2010). Given thesituation, this article sets out to describe how theteachers and assistants working in this contextinteract in the classroom, how they assume anddistribute their corresponding teaching roles,and how these roles are articulated linguisticallyas classroom discourse functions. Variables suchas native and nonnative teacher status and teacherdiscourse, novice and veteran teaching experi-ence, as well as possible cultural differences will betaken into consideration when discussing thefindings.

TEAM TEACHING: DEFINITION, STYLES,AND SPECIFITIES OF CLIL CLASSROOMSETTINGS

The practice of team teaching (TT) has beengainingmomentum inmany educational contextsas interdisciplinary pedagogical approaches(Davis, 1995) in conjunction with social–inter-actionist principles (Gokhale, 1995; Lantolf,2000; van Lier, 1988) have proven beneficial foreffective learning. Specifically, sociocultural the-ories of learning affirm the centrality of whatlearners bring to any learning situation and viewthese as active meaning makers and problemsolvers. They also acknowledge the dynamicnature of the interplay among teachers, learners,and tasks, and provide a view of learning as arisingfrom interaction with others. With reference tothe second language classroom context, van Lier(1988) rightly argues that research must “exposecomplex relationships between individual partic-ipants, the classroom and the societal forces thatinfluence it” (p. 82). In other words, socioculturaltheories of learning support the idea that TT talkhas a pedagogical function and, concurrently, acritical social function that needs to be addressed.

Stated at the most general level, a TT situationrefers to the act of two teachers collaborating for ashared goal. The most common format includes

the simultaneous presence of both teachers in theclassroom and being actively involved in instruc-tion (Buckley, 1999). Yet, other definitions allowfor a more flexible framework where teachersshare in the education of a group of students(Quinn & Kanter, 1984). In this article wecombine these understandings to define TT as apedagogical approach where two teachers collab-orate simultaneously and share in the instruction-al process for the same group of students within agiven subject matter in the same classroom. Inemploying this definition, we do not consider pullout styles of TT (i.e. teaching outside the sharedcontext), since we view simultaneous classroomteaching as a necessary condition in order to focuson the relationship among participants, theirpedagogies, and their corresponding discursivefunctions.

According to Villa, Thousand, and Nevin(2004), collaborative teaching is effective forstudents with a variety of instructional needs,including English language learners. This is sobecause TT distributes classroom responsibilitiesfor teachers, which, in turn, enablesmore creativeproblem solving and facilitates a shared learningcommunity. Additionally, it promotes inclusion,whereby students with special or diverse needsare able to share a class with mainstreamlearners while receiving individualized attention(Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995). Moreover, teamteachers serve as models of cooperation wherebystudents are able to emulate the collaborativeskills that their teachers exhibit in the classroom(Hibler, 2010).

Maroney (1995) summarised the predominantmanifestations of TT practice in the taxonomydisplayed in Table 1.

Most team teachers use a variety of styles, whichthey adapt to fit their specific needs. Thus,effective TT combines methods depending onthe strengths and personalities of the teachers, aswell as the needs of the students (Maroney, 1995).Standard manifestations of TT are found incontexts where team teachers are equal in statusand able to demonstrate parity with each other(Cook & Friend, 2007). Yet there are numerouscontexts where co-teachers a priori do not holdequal status, as in most assistant-style teams, suchas the JET Program in Japan, EPIK in Korea,and PNET in Hong Kong (Carless, 2001,2004; Gorsuch, 2002; Tajino & Tajino, 2000;Walker, 2001), or some language assistant pro-grammes in countries like Australia (Arkoudis,2003), the UK (Creese, 2000, 2006), Spain(Hibler, 2010; Mendez Garcıa & PavonVazquez, 2012), or Slovenia (Alderson et al.,

656 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

2001) where the Supportive team teaching styledescribed by Maroney (1995) seems to predomi-nate. In Maroney’s model, the Main Teachers(MTs) usually lead the class and are responsiblefor most planning and subject teaching, while theLanguage Assistants (LAs) work alongside MTsand prepare and deliver additional activities or actas language informants (i.e., language sampler,especially concerning pronunciation). Accordingto the official guide designed by the CAM regionalgovernment,2 LAs should fulfil the followingfunctions: (a) help MTs plan their lessons andassist them in the classroom by providing foreignlanguage support; (b) follow MTs’ instructionsand collaborate with them; (c) reinforcestudents’ oral skills; and (d) encourage andpromote students’ interest in the LAs’ nativelanguage and country of origin as a meansof increasing intercultural awareness andmotivation.

This initially predetermined Supportive TTstyle defined by government guidelines may,however, be modified by the specific pedagogicalpractices implemented by particular teachers(e.g., frontal teaching, frontal interactive,group/pair/individual work), by the rapportbuilt between MTs and LAs, or by the languageabilities of both participants. In other words, anMTwho promotes, for example, greater emphasison student-centred methodology, creative in-struction (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995), andparticipation will very likely encourage moreinteraction and involvement from his/her LAand will, consequently, implement regular collab-orative pedagogies.

In the specific CLIL context in which weoperate, the setup of native (the LA) andnonnative (the MT) instructors presents addi-tional challenges in terms of cooperation. Forinstance, regarding teacher status, this modelsomewhat reverses the traditional scenario, as the

“nondominant” teacher (or LA) is the nativespeaker of the L2 and thus most likely the linguis-tic model to imitate by students, while the“dominant” teacher (or MT) is, in turn, thenonnative speaker but, concurrently, the one whopossesses more disciplinary knowledge, teachingexperience, and classroom talk time. The intrica-cy of this situation and the types of roles andresulting discourse that are produced throughthis teaming will be addressedmore extensively inthe findings section.

CLASSROOM DISCOURSE FUNCTIONS

Discourse functions, or communicative lan-guage functions, are commonly seen as beinglinked to certain social and interactive situationsand performing an important part in thefunctioning of language as a social tool (Dalton–Puffer, 2007). Within classroom settings, dis-course functions are closely tied to the overallpurpose of teaching and learning of new knowl-edge and skills; thus specific types of functions(which may not be frequent in daily interaction)are likely to occur in instructional contexts and,more specifically, in TT contexts.

For our analysis, we draw on three broad strandsof literature to frame the study and examine thedata, namely, Classroom Discourse Analysis(Cazden, 2001; Dalton–Puffer, 2007; Snow, Met,& Genesee, 1989), Systemic Functional Linguis-tics (SFL), specifically Christie’s (1997, 2002)distinction between regulative and instructionalregisters, and Second Language Acquisition(SLA) theories and the importance of negotiationfor the modification of input (Long, 1983, 1991;Lyster, 1998; Pica, 1991, 2000). Within SFL,

[t]he first order or regulative register refers to sets oflanguage choices which are principally involved inestablishing goals for teaching–learning activities,

TABLE 1Styles of Team Teaching (from Maroney, 1995)

Team Teaching Style Definition

Standard TT Takes places when both teachers actively share in instruction, and their status isnearly equivalent.

Collaborative TT Similar to standard TT yet students learn solely in group formats, sometimesreferred to as Total Collaborative Learning (Gokhale, 1995).

Supportive TT Refers to approaches where one teacher is in charge of content teaching, the otherfocuses on reinforcement activities or skill building. The distribution of teacherstatus is apparent in these settings, whereby one teacher leads, the other follows.

Parallel TT Students are divided at random and each teacher is responsible for the learning oftheir group.

Differentiated TT Similar to parallel TT yet students are grouped according to learning needs/levels.

Emma Dafouz and Abbie Hibler 657

and with fostering and maintaining the direction ofthe activities until the achievement of the goals. Thesecond order or instructional register refers tolanguage choices in which the knowledge andassociated skills being taught are realized.

(Christie, 1997, p. 136)

In other words, because the instructional registerties in “with the content being taught andlearned” (Christie, 2002, p. 15) it is mostly thedomain of the MT, while the regulative register isconcerned with the types of behaviour developedin the classroom and is expected to be shared byMTs and LAs. Christie (2002) furthermoreproposes that school genres tend to begin inthe regulative register (e.g., morning greetings,instructions on how to do a particular task), whichprojects the instructional register in such a waythat the amount of discourse in the regulativeregister decreases gradually and the amount oftalk in the instructional register increases (e.g.,explanations, descriptions, classifications).

Instructional Register: Explaining

Using this two-fold register distinction as aframework for the instructional register, we willfocus on onediscourse function that seems to takeup much of the classroom time: Explaining(Cazden, 2001). Although intuitively easy tounderstand, the function of Explaining (EXPL)is not easily characterized. Dalton–Puffer (2007)points out that explaining is often described as“telling [students] what they don’t know” (p.141). Such a broad definition, nonetheless, wouldautomatically turn much of what teachers say intoexplanations, making further differentiationsdifficult. For that reason, our work definesexplanations as the teacher’s initial presentation ofnovel information or his/her first attempt toarticulate a given topic or procedure. Thefunction of EXPL is, in turn, specified throughthree linguistic strategies that SLA studies haveidentified as a means for negotiating input and,potentially, for a change in form, namely,Expanding (XPN), Recasting (REC), and Repeat-ing (REP). Expanding (XPN) is used here whenadding new information to previously mentionedcontent. Since teachers often respond by addinginformation to what was previously said, expan-sions often act as topic–continuation moves(Lyster, 1998) that allow instructors to keepstudents’ attention focused on content or proce-dural matters. Drawing the line between Explana-tions (EXPL) and Expansions (XPN) is not aneasy matter, especially since these two functions

often co-occur, with the former preceding thelatter. In order to distinguish between them,Explanations will include teachers’ presentationof new information in a single turn, whileExpansions will designate teachers’ addition ofinformation in a different conversational turn (seeextract 1 lines 1–6 to illustrate this difference).

Recasting (REC) is defined as the partialrepetition of an utterance by changing one or moreutterance components. Whereas in explicit correc-tion the teacher supplies the correct answer andclearly indicates what was wrong, in a Recast, theteacher reformulates part of what has been said,without explicitly indicating whether errors oc-curred in the initial utterance or not. Recasts havetraditionally received much attention in L2research as a source for comprehensible inputand negative evidence (see Long, 1983, 1991;Lyster, 1998). However, it is often not easy todistinguish teachers’ intention when using re-casts, as these may be formulated to correct form,to focus on meaning or to cover both aspectssimultaneously; this distinction becomes evenmore difficult as teachers are not always consistentin (or aware of) their recasting strategies. A studyby Lyster (1998), focusing on 27 lessons in fourFrench immersion classrooms at the primarylevel, illustrates the multifunctional nature ofREC when he concludes that “the formal proper-ties entailed in the corrective reformulation ofrecasts may easily be overridden by their func-tional properties in meaning-oriented class-rooms” (p. 65).

Finally, Repeating (REP) can be defined as theexact reproduction of an interlocutor ’s utterance.Richards and Lockhart (1994) agree that teacherrepetitions foster comprehension and enablestudents’ awareness of L2 features. Additionally,by repeating student utterances, the teachershows acceptance of their contributions whilealso creating cohesion in the overall classroomdiscourse. For that reason, the role of repetitionin classroom interaction has interested conversa-tional analysts in their study of social patterns ofinteraction in school conversations. Tannen(1989) and Johnstone et al. (1994), are twowell-established studies of REP which distinguishbetween teacher self-repetition and other-repeti-tion. Within CLIL contexts, Llinares Garcıa(2003) shows that teacher self-repetition is oneof the most common types of discourse functionsfound, especially in low-immersion contextswhere instructors are concerned with makingthe subject content clear, rendering the languageaccessible, or both. Finally, in a comparative studyof teacher repetitions at CLIL secondary and


tertiary levels, Dafouz and Llinares Garcıa (2008)distinguish between repetitions with a pedagogi-cal focus (i.e., those which offer positive ornegative feedback to students) and repetitionswith an interactional focus (i.e., those which areused to foster student participation and turntaking). In brief, this study concluded thatteachers surveyed repetitions more often with apedagogical focus than an interactional one andthat repetitions weremostly content-driven ratherthan language-driven.

Regulative Discourse: Rewarding and Disciplining

Over the past decade, research on classroominteraction or discourse has primarily focused on“instructional discourse” (see Bernstein, 1996);less research has been conducted on regulativediscourse (but see Dalton–Puffer & Nikula, 2006,and their work on directives). However, in linewith Christie (1997, 2002), we believe thatregulative discourse determines the pacing ofthe instructional discourse as well as the mannerin which learning is sequenced and evaluated. Inother words, we assume that regulative discourselargely frames how the instructional discourse isconstructed. Within this register, two discoursefunctions will be studied: Rewarding (REW) andDisciplining (DIS).

Rewarding (REW) has attracted frequent atten-tion inmany educational contexts, especially froma second language acquisition angle that focuseson teacher feedback as a source for comprehensi-ble input (see Dalton–Puffer, 2007; Long, 1991;Lyster & Ranta, 1997). In contrast, Disciplining(DIS) has not generated as much research,perhaps due to its lower incidence in classroomdata and to the delicate behavioural issues it raises.As in instructional discourse above, the functionsof REW and DIS will be analysed using the XPN,REC, and REP second language acquisitioninteractional strategies explained earlier.

THE STUDY: SETTING, DATA, ANDANALYSIS

The Setting

In the 2004–2005 school year the Departmentof Education in CAM, under the supervision ofthe Directorate General for the Improvement ofEducation Quality (Direccion General de Mejora de laCalidad de la Ensenanza), commissioned the firstbilingual primary schools programme. The over-riding goal of this initiative is to improve students’foreign language (FL) competence (in most

cases, English) in order to better prepare learnersfor future professional opportunities in a global-ized world. Nearly a decade later, over 300primary schools (1st–6th grades) participate inthe programme (more than 35% of the totalprimary schools in the Madrid region),3 offeringat least one third of the 25 weekly hours of classesin English as the medium of instruction. In termsof programming,most schools have implementedarts and crafts, science, music, and/or physicaleducation as part of the CLIL syllabus, and haveincreased the number of hours devoted to Englishas a FL from 3 to 5 hours per week.4 The primaryschool teachers working in this setting usuallyrepresent two demographics: (a) specializedcontent teachers who have been certified to useEnglish as a medium for content via Englishlanguage training, and (b) English languagespecialists with subject content training (seeHibler, 2010). Before entering the programme,teachers take part in training courses focusing onCLIL methodology and foreign language classes,while LAs receive a two day informational trainingsession before entering the school environment,followed by two shorter training sessions over thecourse of the academic year. LAs are employed fora maximum of two years, after which they mustleave the programme. Although most assistantsreturn to their home country, others continueteaching in private or charter schools where theyusually take on a similar role. Regarding theirresponsibilities, LAs are hired for a total of 16teaching hours a week: 14 hours are distributedamong the subjects taught through English andthe remaining two hours may be dedicated toteacher education. For example, it is often thecase that LAs provide English language instruc-tion to other school teachers, faculty members, oreven parents. The organization of an LA’sschedule with respect to class and level is decidedby the school staff.

In 2009, the CAM commissioned an evaluationof the LA experience, drawing on the 300questionnaires collected during one of thetraining sessions in an attempt to better under-stand the needs and realities of the programme(see Hibler & O’Byrne, 2009). This data wasanalyzed and presented to the CAM personnel.Findings revealed that, in spite of the organiza-tional and financial effort put forth for theprogramme, the role of the LA was insufficientlydefined. Thus, although both parties agreed onthe need for LAs to be more proactive in class,both the teachers and the LAs also demandedmore ownership in the programme as a whole. Inour view, these findings need to be combined with


the observation of actual classroom TT practices,as this study sets out to do, so that teachingroles can be better identified, described, andunderstood.

Data Collection

Data collection consisted of two phases, a pilotquestionnaire and classroom observation. Thesestages are explained in the following sections.

Pilot Questionnaire

In step 1, a pilot questionnaire conducted in2009 (see Hibler, 2010) was administered to asmall number of MTs (n ¼ 15) and LAs (n ¼ 15)to determine their views and first-hand experi-ences of the bilingual programme in their centre.MTs were 13 women and two men, all of whomwere English language specialists with contenttraining. Of the 15 LAs surveyed, 9 came from theUSA, 2 from theUK, and the other 4 from Ireland,Canada, Australia, and South Africa. Typically,LAs were university graduates in their earlytwenties with some teaching/applicable experi-ence; 5 held a degree in Education, 4 had highereducation degrees/Masters in English and/orEducation, and 6 had received some training inteaching English as a Foreign/Second Language.This suggests that the LAs employed seem to havemore experience and relevant educational studiesthan is officially required by the CAM. RegardingTT rapport, the questionnaire showed that bothgroups of teachers enjoyed working together, with14 out of 15MTs and 10 out of 15 of LAs reportinga positive experience. Contradictory responsesemerged, however, regarding LA classroomparticipation. For example, while 11 MTs indicat-ed that the LA was involved in nearly all in-classactivities, only 7 LAs reported to be so engaged.The third comparative item showed that 6 MTsand 9 LAs demanded more LA involvement.Finally, the last comparative analysis was con-cerned with specifying teaching roles. Here, while

MTs stated that they had clearly explained whatwas expected of LAs in terms of roles andfunctions, 11 of the 15 LAs surveyed declaredneeding more concrete guidelines.

Classroom Observation

In step 2, classroom observation was conductedto identify the tasks/roles the MTs and LAsperformed and the discourse functions they used.In order to have a more varied view of theclassroom context, two complementary sets ofdata were employed: prerecorded data and in-class live observation. Prerecorded data consistedof online videos that the public website of theRegional Educational Department of the CAMcreated with the purpose of introducing thebilingual programme to a wider audience.5 Thesecond data source, in-class live observations,occurred in three different schools where MTsand LAs had consented to being video-recorded.The participants in the live observations wereinvited to an interview post-observation as a formof stimulated recall to which 2 of the LAs and oneMT agreed to participate.

Six sessions drawn from the science curriculumconstitute our data. For comparative purposes,similarity in grade level and subject topic coveredhas been taken into consideration. Six MTs (allfemale) and six LAs (two male and four female)took part in our study. All the MTs observed areEnglish language specialists who had receivedtraining in CLIL, a profile that seems to befrequent in Spanish primary schools (FernandezRivero, 2008), while the LAs ranged in education-al and occupational backgrounds, similar to thepilot population. Finally, the students in thesesessions were in their first or second cycle ofprimary education (i.e., 6–9 year olds) and variedin the length of time studying subject-specificcontents through English, ranging from oneschool year (i.e., grade 1 students) to three schoolyears (i.e., grade 3 students). Table 2 gives anoverview of the sessions analysed in this study.

TABLE 2Classroom Data Used for Analysis

Session Number Grade Topic from Science Subject Team-Teaching Composition Data Origin

1 1 The Animal Kingdom MT (female)–LA (female) Prerecorded data2 2 The Skeletal System MT (female)–LA (male) Prerecorded data3 2 Classification of Animals MT (female)–LA (female) Prerecorded data4 2 Flowers MT (female)–LA (male) Live data5 3 Habitats MT (female)–LA (female) Live data6 3 The Skeletal System MT (female)–LA (female) Live data


Classroom Data Analysis

As indicated before, three levels of analysis wereused for the data: instructional and regulativeregisters, classroom discourse functions, and SLAstrategies. We have focused on occasions whereexplicit linguistic interaction between theMT, theLA, and the students took place. From amongthese, we selected extracts that are representativeof the type of interaction occurring between MTsand LAs and the roles that both sets ofparticipants assumed (consciously or uncon-sciously) in the classroom.6 In contrast, theprerecorded data contained a considerableamount of classroom time wherein MTs talkedand LAs observed.

The classroom data was analysed independentlyby the two authors; remaining discrepancies werediscussed and resolved. On two occasions, a thirdrater (i.e., a colleagueexpert in classroomdiscourse)was consulted to facilitate reaching agreement.

RESULTS

The following extracts are organized in termsof classroom register used (i.e., regulative or

instructional), and discourse functions enacted(EXPL, REW, or DIS) in combination with thelinguistic strategy or categories (XPD, REC, REP)used by MTs and LAs. The nature of the dataresulted in some extracts showing convergence ofthe regulative and instructional registers.

Instructional Discourse

Extract 1 below focuses on the function ofExplanation (EXPL) as the MT introducesthe students into the notion of vertebrate/invertebrate animals for the first time. See theAppendix for transcription conventions used inthe analysis.

In this excerpt, the MT employs a comparativetechnique to demonstrate the differences be-tween animals (turns 1 and 3). In turn, the LAenters the conversation in line 5, where thereseems to be a pause in the MT’s speech (line 6).This encourages the LA to repeat and expandthe MT’s discourse. Following this turn, lines11–12 show the role the LA plays in Recasting(REC) the MT discourse. In this case, the LArecasts an incorrect comparative structure into asuperlative one. The LA seems to repeat and

EXTRACT 1. Teacher explains the concept of vertebrate and invertebrate animals (Session 6).

1 MT Animals that have bones are called, [vert] vertebrates. They have got bones.Look at the picture, who has not got bones? (EXPL)

2 SS the mosquito3 MT Yes! The mosquito (REP) has got no [no] bones, and the giraffe . . . has the

giraffe got bones?4 SS Yes the giraffe bones.5 LA (holding up a picture of a giraffe) Oh . . . Yes he does! ((LA confirms students’

content response)) Where are the bones? (XPD)6 MT You can’t see the bones, but . . . but . . . you7 LA You can’t see bones, (REC) because they are inside, but you can . . . imagine!

(XPD)SS <chatter> ((Ss talking about MT/LA exchange, some codeswitching taking place))

8 S1 leg bones?9 MT <laughter>Yes!10 LA Of course, the giraffe has HUGE leg bones ((gesture huge with arms)) (XPD)11 MT Where is the smaller bones?12 LA Where is the smallest bone? (REC)((MT and LA look at each other to confirm plausible response))13 SS <chattering>14 MT ok[ok] . . .15 LA So which bone is sm- (REC)16 MT Smaller the skull or the [the] . . . toes bones? (XPN)17 LA Have a look, which are smaller . . . ((LA pointing to the skull and feet)) the skull, or

(REC) ((silently pointing to the toe bones))18 S1 toes, toes, in the19 S2 foot bones20 MT Perfect, the smaller bones in the toes (REW)21 LA Man, you two ((referring to the two who answered the question)) are SMART! (REC)22 High fives, get ’em up ((LA rewards SS with high fives))(REW)


recast the MT’s turn for student comprehen-sion, but may also be attempting to reformulatethe MT’s inaccurate form. However, the MTdoes not directly repeat the REC and insteadreturns to the comparative form (“smaller”) inthe following lines. Turns 20, 21, and 22 showinstances of regulative register, with the MTrewarding the students with a straightforward“perfect” while the LA employs a more informalregister (“Man, you two are smart”) and theculturally bound gesture of the high five. Thefollowing extract shows learners studying flowerparts and the different factors involved in flowergrowth, with an interesting distribution of MTand LA roles.

EXTRACT 2. MT introduces the components offlower growth (Session 5).

Extract 2 is replete with overlapping functionsand multifunctional utterances. The MT beginsthe class with a strong command, followed by acodeswitched reprimand (DIS). This use of the L1could be linked to student unruly behaviour as theclass began. After the initial codeswitch, the LArecasts the L1 utterance, softens the tone, andrewords the MT’s threat (line 2). This turncontinues with notable differences in discipliningstrategies, as shown in lines 4–6. The MT employs

a more direct and authoritative strategy while theLA again uses a positive politeness strategy.Overcoming the initial discipline problems,the class turns to the content component wherethe LA leads the introduction by stating the pagenumber in the textbook (line 6–7). Following this,the MT recasts (REC) the LA by simplifying thepage number (line 8). Both teachers then moveinto the content where the LA expands the MT’sfocus question (lines 10–11) and adds a gesture.These turns elicit intense student chatter, whichseemingly was on task. TheMT then takes over thetalk by posing another question (line 13). Afterfurther explanation, the remaining lines of thisexcerpt demonstrate the spontaneous banter thatcan take place when the TT partners work in acollaborative pattern. Lines 14–23 show a veryquick tempo, which led students to remain on task

and focused the entire class. Here, the turnsbetween the MT and LA move back and forth,with both participants taking the lead and thencomplementing each other, such that the LArecasts the MT use of the simple tense byreformulating the questions into progressivetenses. Yet the MT does not explicitly pick upon the recasts, perhaps due to the swift tempo inthe turn taking. In this extract, it is worthcommenting on the LA’s considerable use of

((Students chatting while getting out books))1 MT Ok . . . Let’s go! QUIET! <L1 Quien hable ahora, se queda . . . > (DIS)2 LA Oh! Silence . . . NOBODY wants to stay inside during recess (REC)3 MT Juan! ((Still talking))4 LA Juan, would you like to stay with us . . . (REC)5 MT NO! He will go to the head master . . . ((Looks at S <L1 lo entiendes> (DIS)

OK, Let’s go . . . page . . .6 LA Sixty-five7 MT six . . . five (REC)8 MT What do we need to grow a flower?9 LA What three things do we need, so that flowers can grow ((mimics with body growing)) . . . can

grow big and strong (XPD)10 SS <chatting>11 MT Look outside, what do you see?

(later in the same session)12 MT We have the sun, what else do we have for a plant to grow? (EXPL)13 SS Water14 LA Right! (REW) The sun and water (REP)15 MT Sun, water and . . .((LA breathing heavily in and out to elicit Ss))16 MT What does she do?17 LA I am br . . . eath . . .18 SS Breathing!19 MT And what do you breathe? (XPN)20 LA ((again breathing in)) What am I BREATHING? (REC)21 SS <L1 aire>22 MT YES! (REW) A . . .23 SS Air!


body language as a teaching resource (lines 9, 17,20). Our data suggest that gestures, mimicry, andonomatopoeic sounds are usually more visible inthe LAs’ behaviour than in the MT. The subse-quent interviews held with the threeMTs from thelive observation classrooms also revealed thatteachers preferred the assistants to use thesemultimodal resources since, in their opinion, LAsdid it more naturally and seemed less inhibited,possibly due to their proximity to students’ agegroup. Nonetheless, since analysis of thesemultimodal strategies falls beyond the scope ofthis article, further research in this line would bewelcome.

Extract 3 below exemplifies how the TT elicitedstudents’ responses within the instructionalregister by expanding (XPN), repeating (REP),and recasting (REC) their discourse.

EXTRACT 3. Students speaking about art(Session 1).

In this excerpt the perceived silence is treateddifferently by the MT and the LA. Thus while theMT formulates an open question (line 3) andwaits for students to respond, the LA expands onthe MT’s question by offering students alterna-tives and may instead interpret this silent episodeas an opportunity to provide some scaffolding thatcan facilitate students’ response.

Regulative Discourse

Given the supportive role that the LAs were toldto assume in these contexts, it is not surprisingthat most MT and LA interaction took placewithin the regulative register, that is, whenclassroommanagement was in focus. The extractschosen to illustrate this regulative register aremainly found either at the beginning of the classwhen the MT was initiating the daily routines(extracts 4, 5, and 6) or at the end of the session(extract 7) when transitioning to class break.Extracts 8 and 9 describe behavioural issues,

specifically REW andDIS, which took place withinthis register but which could also appear at anygiven point of the classroom session.

EXTRACT 4. Class opening with daily routine(Session 3).

Lines 3–4 display how the LA recasts the MT’squestion concerning the date by using theappropriate form. And yet, the LA’s REC maygo unnoticed by the MT, since there is no uptake(line 6). One could argue that the MT was tryingto foster student comprehension by simplifyingthe input (“the number” instead of “the date”)but there is no evidence for this.

Interestingly, in extract 5 below it is the LA whouses the utterance “what’s the number?” in acontext similar to the one in extract 4, namely thatof daily routines.

EXTRACT 5. Class opening with daily routine(Session 2).

Although this is somewhat speculative, given theabsence of other similar examples in our data, theLA’s use of the expression “what is the number?”instead of “date” may be connected with theoverall aim of prioritizing student comprehen-sion over linguistic accuracy. However, at thesame time, it may also be linked to extract 4 above

1 MT Do you like it? ((Teacher is present-ing the Guernica painting byPicasso))

2 S1 Yes3 MT And how do feel when you look at

it, (XPD) how do you feel? (REP)<silence>4 LA Happy? Sad? Angry? (XPD)

((While making faces to symbolizeeach sentiment))

1 MT And . . . Diego, do you know what day isit today?

2 SS Today is Friday.3 MT And do you know . . . the number?4 LA What’s the date? (REC)5 SS I don’t know.6 MT What’s the number? (REP)7 S2 I think tha- . . . To . . . Today is the

second.8 LA Of . . . the month ((elicit Ss))9 S2 The second of May.10 MT Yes! Very good! (REW) And the year?11 LA What year is it? (REC)12 S3 Spring13 MT No, What year is it? (REP)14 LA Is it 2010, is it –? (REC)15 MT 2006?

1 MT Good morning students!2 SS Good morning X!3 MT ok . . . John speaks.4 LA Who can tell me what day it is today?5 S1 Thursday6 LA Thursday (REP), good (REW). And what

is the number? (XPN)7 S2 eleven8 LA eleven (REP), good (REW). And the

month?


(line 6) as the LA may be reproducing a strategyfor simplifying input previously observed in theMT’s discourse and which, as line 7 illustrates(“eleven”), elicits student response.

Extracts 6, 7, and 8 illustrate clear differences inthe linguistic devices and registers used byMTs and LAs when addressing students. In allthree cases, the LA’s use of REC is an attemptto reproduce the instructions or rewards pro-vided by the MT but usually employing a moreinformal register. The LA’s choice of moreidiomatic, colloquial and even humorous dis-course (extract 8, line 4) gives an idea of thedifferent registers that TT practices are offeringstudents in a meaningful and authentic way.The discussion section will revisit this aspect inmore detail.

EXTRACT 6. Teachers begin lesson (Session 4).

In the following lengthy extract, differences in theDIS strategies used by both instructors aredepicted.

EXTRACT 9. Teachers reprimanding chattystudent (Session 6).

In spite of clear instructions and recommen-dations from the CAM official handbook statingthat assistants should not get involved indisciplinary actions, our data show that LAssometimes do intervene in disciplinary situa-tions. In the observed classes, both MTs andLAs were disciplining students for minor behav-ioural issues such as talking, name callingor cutting in line. In general, the MT usedmore direct commands (lines 2, 6, and 8), whilethe LA recast these commands using an indirectspeech act to soften these commands (lines 3and 7). Moreover, the rhetorical structureemployed by the MT in line 4 (“Do you wantto shut up?”) reflects direct L1 (Spanish)interference strategies and results in a stylewhich, as the LA noted in the post-interview,was regarded as fairly “brusque” and “offensive.”In addition to possible cultural clashes betweenparticipants, which were mentioned in thestimulated recall sessions, these MT discoursepatterns may run the risk of being reproducedby students outside the classroom contextwhere they may result in sociopragmaticfailure. Thus, given the importance of thispragmatic phenomenon, it would be desirablethat specific and explicit attention to thesematters were provided when setting up TTtraining courses.

The last excerpt below shares both instruc-tional and regulative register features: Theteacher introduces some subject matter contentfor the first time (i.e., EXPL) when shementionsthe importance of milk in the diet, while,concurrently, dealing with organizationalaspects of task planning (i.e., regulative),specifically instructions on how to work ingroups.

1 MT Put you books in [sic] your table andsilence

2 LA Let’s go guys, Books on your tableand zip your lips (REC)

EXTRACT 7. Teachers transitioning into breaktime (Session 5).

1 MT Close your books and line up forpatio

2 LA Close ’em up. Close those books andget in line (REC)

EXTRACT 8. Teachers rewarding student (Session 5).

1 MT Excellent, well done (REW)2 MT See that, M- gave a complete sen-

tence. I like complete sentences(XPD)

3 MT Good job (REW)4 LA Good eye- (REC) you can really see

the difference in verts and inverts!(XPD) Stellar! You are so smart.(XPD) Oh my god, how did you getso smart? (REC)

((Students working individually as teachers circulate theroom))1 MT A- are you working in pairs or

individually? I see you discussingwith M-.

((Students continue to talk))2 MT Shut up! (DIS)3 LA Quiet down (REC). It is getting very

noisy in here (XPD)

(later in session)((MT reading from book while two students continue totalk))

4 MT Do you want to shut up? (DIS)5 S1 It is Pablo. He doesn’t stop.6 MT PABLO! You stop to bother now

(DIS)7 LA Pablo, stop bothering Adam. Adam

stop bothering Pablo. Got it? (REC)8 MT Pablo! You don’t spea-you don’t

speak now! (DIS)


EXTRACT 10. Revising material on vertebratesand invertebrates through a game (Session 4).

During this short exchange, the LA played animportant part in assisting S1’s question formula-tion by stressing the pragmatic importance of“please” (lines 6–10). In contrast, the MT’sdominant status appears clearly in lines 11–12where a student is reprimanded for asking the LAfor a specific card (“lion card”). This interaction

exemplifies the difficulty of working together, asone teacher may not be aware of the objectives orthe activity that the other intended. However, asthe data show, in cooperative situations thesemishaps can be worked out and can provideample opportunities for learning (see lines 11–12)where the LA recasts the MT’s command in avery colloquial manner. Following this turn, theLA initiates an XPN by introducing the notion of“milk” with relation to “bones” (lines 16–17).The MT picks up on the expansion, as did thestudents, and then links it to the content: “milkand strong bones.” After XPN, the MT again ledthe class organizationally in reverting back to thetask by refocusing on the procedure. The MTfinalized the explanation with a command, whichwas again formulated as a recast (REC) by theLA using an informal and colloquial register (line18–19).

DISCUSSION

The data suggest a recursive pattern in theinteractional exchanges conducted by MTs andLAs in the classroom sessions examined. Thefindings show that the occasions where the MTand LA interact more often generally belong tothe regulative register, that is, to situations inwhich classroom management issues are dealtwith and content matters (i.e., the domain of theMT) are not in focus. In these cases, it is the MTwho initiates a turn, either addressing theassistant or the students, with the LA developinga given turn rather than beginning a new one.Within this regulative register, and in line withthis idea, the functions of Rewarding (REW) andDisciplining (DIS) are usually enacted first by theMT and only then followed up by the LA, mostlyusing a Recast (REC) strategy. In this sequence,LA’s RECs seem to play a scaffolding role, aimingtomake the FLmore accessible to students, eitherby simplifying a question, making a request moreconcrete, or displaying a wider set of examples.Moreover, when recasting, our data show that LAsoften employ a more informal and idiomaticregister than the MT. This finding coincides withthe work conducted by Lorenzo, Casal, andMoore (2010) within the Plurilingual Programmein Andalusia (Spain) where it was suggested(drawing on a survey distributed among LAs)that assistants “foster conversational style lan-guage, [while] the language teachers focus onsentence-level grammar” (p. 442). From a prag-matic standpoint, LAs’ REC could also be seen toengage MTs in an attempt to soften some of theircontributions by making them more indirect,

1 MT We are going to give you a group ofcards . . . and in pairs you have to maketwo big groups according to have theygot a skeleton or not.

2 MT How do we call the animals with askeleton?

3 MT ((side conversation to LA)) give them 4cards each.

((LA passing out cards to Ss. Students having sideconversations with LA))

4 SS Vertebrates

((Simultaneous conversation with LA))

5 S1 I want -((student points to a card with alion))

6 LA Oh, you want a different card than theone I gave you.

7 S1 lion, lion c . . . card,8 LA < laughter> Can I have the lion card,

PLEASE? (REC)9 S1 lion card, please!10 LA repeat, P-, can I have the lio-

((MT, moves around room to see if everyone has cards,noticing LA and Ss exchange))

11 MT No, you don’t! change the cards (DIS).You HAVE cards.

12 LA ok, So the cards you get are the cardsyou get . . . don’t ask me to exchange‘em (REC)

13 S1 no in . . . <inaudible>14 LA You don’t have any invertebrates. No

problem . . . you have lots of bones . . .Lots of milk for these animals . . .(XPD)

15 MT < laughter>milk . . . milk, calcium . . .bones . . . and vertebrates (XPD)

16 SS Milk and bone?17 MT drink milk it makes your bones strong

(EXPL) ((MT moves on to addressingwhole class))

18 MT So I want a group of vertebrates and agroup of invertebrates. That is the firstthing you have to do.

19 LA Ok, get to it. Let’s do it. (REC)


especially when dealing with Disciplining (DIS)matters. One fundamental driving force of suchdecision rules is linked closely to the notion ofpower relations, where most explicit DIS state-ments are uttered by the higher status (ordominant) participants, creating a tendency forDIS to be more rather than less direct in ahierarchy differential, occupying different statuspositions in personal communication. In otherwords, the dominant participants (i.e., MTs)tend to use directive speech acts in their discourseto address their subordinates whereas theless dominant participants (i.e., LAs) are morelikely to choose indirect forms or strategiesin interpersonal communication (Brown &Levinson, 1987). In a classroom situation, thesepower relations are undoubtedly connected toexperienced vs. novice teacher status, whereby thenovice teacher (i.e., LA) tends to use indirectspeech acts while the experienced (i.e., MT) mayuse more direct ones.

A key aspect that remains to be investigated inthis TT situation is whetherMT use ofmore directspeech forms are indeed the result of a consciouschoice of linguistic options or, as our datatentatively suggest, the possible effect of intercul-tural differences amongst participants togetherwith some MTs’ incomplete sociopragmaticcompetence in the foreign language. The ques-tion is all the more interesting as this finding hasalso been observed in secondary and tertiarysettings (Dafouz & Llinares Garcıa, 2008;Dafouz, 2011) where classroom discourse analysissuggests that teachers often possess narrowerdiscursive repertoires than those needed toexpress commands, requests, or other interac-tional practices in a more indirect, and thus,polite manner.

As for Rewarding (REW), our data exemplifyprofuse use of student praise by both MTs andLAs; however, differences emerge in the turn andthe register used. Hence, while MTs usuallyinitiate the REW and use more formal language,LAs follow the MT turn by adopting an informaland conversational style in their REC and XPN.

Within the instructional register, the interac-tional patterns used by the two groups ofeducators are similar to the regulative one: TheMT initiates a turn while the LA follows it throughXPN, REP, or REC. The data show that MTs openthe turns and offer many of the (EXPL) functionsin the classrooms, while LAs are mostly responsi-ble for XPN. Additionally, some examples of LAREC in this register may be interpreted as indirectmeans to provide the MTs with FL correctivefeedback. What is not so clear from the excerpts

analysed, however, is the effect that these RECmay have on teacher discourse, since our data didnot yield discernible examples of immediate MTuptake. Finally, Repetitions (REP) are used byboth stakeholders but in a reduced fashion andmostly as a way to confirm students’ contributionsrather than to endorse MT–LA turns. Exactrepetition of discourse may well be dispreferredby participants since this strategy is not perceivedas a way to expand or enrich the resulting FLdiscourse (Lyster, 1998).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This study set out to describe how the MTs andthe LAs working in CLIL public primary schools(Grades 1–6) in the Madrid area interact inscience classrooms, how they perform theircorresponding teaching roles, and how theseroles are articulated discursively. Given thepredetermined supportive role (Maroney, 1995)that the regional government guidelines assign tothe MT–LA relationship (i.e., with the formerleading the class and the latter acting mainly as acultural and FL informant), we expected interac-tion between participants to portray this asym-metrical liaison in their respective use of specificdiscourse functions, namely Explaining, Reward-ing, and Disciplining.

As this qualitative analysis suggests, the Lan-guage Assistant programme implemented by theCAM seems to offer an enriched FL learningcontext, both for the students and for the MTsinvolved, though perhaps of a kind that issomewhat different than what is otherwise under-stood by the role of “cultural informant” for LAs.From that perspective, the discursive practicesdescribed here may help us not only to uncoverdifferences in the use of certain linguistic choicesbut, on the basis of fine-grained classroomobservations, may provide differentiated insightinto the interpersonal relationships, roles, andidentities built amongst participants on the basisof the rapport, skills, linguistic behaviour, andcultural models that both parties follow. Researchin this line should facilitate prospective jointMT–LA planning, iron out tension betweenparticipants, and develop more useful percep-tions of the LA programme as a whole (cf.Arkoudis, 2003; Creese, 2006).

Regarding pedagogical implications, we sug-gest that the teacher education sessions, runannually by the CAM regional administration orthe individual schools, include topics such asteam-teaching planning and practice, classroomdiscourse(s) awareness, and an examination of


intercultural differences across contexts.7 Westrongly believe that an explicit and systematicapproach to such matters will help foster greaterappreciation among all participants and, in thatfashion, render the programme more successful.

Undoubtedly, further research is needed toevaluate the pedagogical as well as the discursiveimpact of MT and LA interaction in other CLILsettings both nationally and internationally,especially given the growing number of LAsparticipating in these CLIL programmes in Spainand elsewhere (Davison, 2006). In this vein, itwould be interesting to follow MTs and LAsclassroom interaction longitudinally to observethe interpersonal effect that team teachingpractices may have over time on these two partiesand, most especially, on students. Although equalpartnership is not the expected outcome fromthese teaching contexts, more interactionalstrategies ought to be developed so that collabo-ration and sharing are regarded by all stake-holders as necessary values within the classroomand beyond.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was completed with the valuablecooperation of the teachers and language assistantsworking in the CAM Bilingual Project. Our thanks alsogo to Michele Guerrini, Pat Moore, and the anonymousreviewers for their insightful and constructive commentson earlier versions of this article.

NOTES

1 Officially, the Madrid regional government uses theterm “bilingual schools” for institutions where a numberof content subjects are taught through English. Howev-er, given the diverse interpretations that the term“bilingual” receives in different contexts, we opt for theacronymCLIL.We believe, along withmany researchersand educators (see Coyle, 2007; Dalton–Puffer, 2007;Graddol, 2006, inter alia), that this term reflects moreappropriately the integration of content and languagein the European setting.

2 A downloadable version of the LA guide can beaccessed at the following link: http://www.educa.madrid.org/cms_tools/files/2d5fd23a-0e00-4ffd-be77-fa6bc57015be/Guiauxiliar.pdf

3 According to CAM information (for the academicyear 2011–2012) there are 276 public primary schoolsand 64 public secondary schools taking part in the CLILprogrammes. English is the sole FL option in primarycentres while the secondary level high schools also offer

French and German as FL. For a more detailed accountof this situation, see http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?blobcol¼urldata&blobheader¼application%2Fpdf&blobkey¼id&blobtable¼MungoBlobs&blobwhere¼1158614556808&ssbinary¼true

4 Within the CAM context, the only prerequisites arethat mathematics and Spanish language are conductedin Spanish. All other subjects may be taught in the FLwith a special emphasis on science (Conocimiento delMedio).

5 All prerecorded data (videos) can be found at http://mediateca.educa.madrid.org/categoria.php?id_categoria¼106

6 By “representative,” we mean the type of TTdiscourse that has been observed to predominate inour data.

7 See Hibler (2010) for a detailed proposal of somepractical tasks to be developed by the LAs in the CAMprogramme.

REFERENCES

Alderson, J. C., Pizorn, K., Zemva, N., & Beaver, L.(Eds.). (2001). The language assistant scheme inSlovenia: A baseline study. Ljubljana, Slovenia: TheBritish Council.

Arkoudis, S. (2003). Teaching English as a secondlanguage in science classes: Incommensurateepistemologies? Language and Education, 17, 161–173.

Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. (1996). Cooperativeteaching: Levels of involvement. Special EducationLeadership Review, 3, 57–64.

Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control andidentity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor& Francis.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Someuniversals in language usage. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Buckley, F. J. (1999). Team teaching: What, why, and how?Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Carless, D. (2001). Book review of Importing diversity:Inside Japan’s JET program. Language, Culture andCurriculum, 14, 276–279.

Carless, D. (2004). Good practices in team teaching inJapan, Korea andHong Kong. System, 34, 341–351.

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language ofteaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Creese, A. (2000). The role of language specialists indisciplinary teaching: In search of a subject?Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Develop-ment, 21, 451–470.

Creese, A. (2006). Supporting talk? Partnership teachersin classroom interaction. International Journal ofBilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 434–453.

Christie, F. (1997). Curriculum macrogenres as initia-tion into a culture. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin(Eds.), Genres and institutions: Social processes in the


workplace and school (pp. 134–160). London:Continuum.

Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: Afunctional perspective. London: Continuum.

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelinesfor creating effective practice. Focus on ExceptionalChildren, 28(3), 1–16.

Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integratedlearning: Towards a connected research agendafor CLIL pedagogies. International Journal ofBilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 543–562.

Dafouz, E. (2011). English as the medium of instructionin Spanish contexts: A look at teacher discourses.In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo delPuerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrat-ed learning: Contributions to multilingualism inEuropean contexts (pp. 189–210). Frankfurt: PeterLang.

Dafouz, E., & Guerrini, M. C. (Eds.). (2009). CLILacross educational levels: Experiences from primary,secondary and tertiary contexts. Madrid: RichmondPublishing.

Dafouz, E., & Llinares Garcıa, A. (2008). The role ofrepetition in CLIL teacher discourse: A compara-tive study at secondary and tertiary levels. Interna-tional CLIL Research Journal, 1, 50–59.

Dalton–Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content andlanguage integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Phil-adelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dalton–Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics ofcontent-based instruction: Teacher and studentdirectives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms.Applied Linguistics, 27, 241–267.

Dalton–Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010).Language use in content-and-language integratedlearning (CLIL). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Davis, J. R. (1995). Interdisciplinary courses and teamteaching: New arrangements for learning. Phoenix, AZ:ACE/Oryx.

Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL andcontent teachers: How do we know when we aredoing it right? International Journal of BilingualEducation and Bilingualism, 9(4), 454–475.

Fernandez Rivero, M. (2008). El trabajo conjunto con elauxiliar de conversacion en la ensenanza bilingue.[Working together with the language assistant inbilingual education.] In S. Aranega, (Ed.), AULAde Innovacion Educativa (pp. 34–37). Barcelona:Editorial Grao.

Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages:Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Cam-bridge, MA: Newbury House.

Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating language and content:Lessons from immersion. Santa Cruz, CA: NationalCenter for Research on Cultural Diversity andSecond Language Learning.

Gokhale, A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhancescritical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7,1–8.

Gorsuch, G. (2002). Assistant foreign languageteachers in Japanese high schools: Focus on thehosting of Japanese teachers. JALT Journal, 24,5–32.

Grenfell, M. (2002). Modern languages across the curricu-lum. New York/London: Routledge.

Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: BritishCouncil.

Hibler, A. (2010). Effective collaboration between native andnonnative speakers in the Spanish CLIL context: Thecase of the language assistants in primary education(Unpublished Master’s thesis). Universidad Com-plutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Accessible athttp://eprints.ucm.es/12796/

Hibler, A., & O’Byrne, H. (2009). An evaluation of thelanguage assistant program in the CAM bilingualschools. Unpublished internal document createdfor the Department of Education of RegionalGovernment of Madrid.

Johnstone, B., et al. (1994). Repetition in discourse:A dialogue. In B. Johnstone (Ed.), Repetition indiscourse: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 1–20).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and secondlanguage learning. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.

Llinares Garcıa, A. (2003). Repetition and younglearners’ initiations in the L2: A corpus drivenanalysis. In D. Archer, P. Rayson, A. Wilson, & T.McEnery (Eds.), Proceedings of the corpus linguistics2003 conference (pp. 237–245). Lancaster, UK:University Centre for Computer Corpus Researchon Language. Retrieved April 1, 2013, from http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/CL2003/papers/garcia.pdf

Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/nonnative speakerconversation and the negotiation of comprehen-sible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature inlanguage teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, D.Coste, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreignlanguage research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., &Moore, P. (2010). The effects ofcontent and language integrated learning inEuropean education: Key findings from theAndalusian bilingual sections evaluation project.Applied Linguistics, 31, 418–442.

Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts andexplicit correction in relation to error types andlearner repair in immersion classrooms. LanguageLearning, 48, 183–218.

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages throughcontent: A counterbalanced approach. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback andlearner uptake: Negotiation of form in communi-cative classrooms. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 19, 37–66.

Maroney, S. A. (1995). Some notes on team teaching.Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfsam1/TeamTchg.html


Mendez Garcıa, C., & Pavon Vazquez, V. (2012).Investigating the coexistence of the mothertongue and the foreign language through teachercollaboration in CLIL contexts: Perceptions andpractice of the teachers involved in the plurilin-gual programme in Andalusia. International Journalof Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(5), 573–592.

Pica, T. (1991). Classroom interaction, participationand comprehension: Redefining relationships.System, 19, 437–445.

Pica, T. (2000). Tradition and transition in Englishlanguage teaching methodology. System, 28, 1–18.

Quinn, S., & Kanter, S. (1984). Team teaching: Analternative to lecture fatigue. Retrieved from ERICdatabase. (ED251159).

Richards, J., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching insecond language classrooms. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Jimenez Catalan, R. (Eds). (2009).Content and language integrated learning: Evidencefrom research in Europe. Bristol, UK: MultilingualMatters.

Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). Aconceptual framework for the integration oflanguage and content in second/foreign languageinstruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 201–217.

Tajino, A., & Tajino, Y. (2000). Native and nonnative:What can they offer? Lessons from team teachingin Japan. ELT Journal, 54, 3–11.

Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue,and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner:Ethnography and second-language classroom research.London: Longman.

Villa, R., Thousand, J., & Nevin, A. (2008). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for facilitating student learning.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Walker, E. (2001). Roles of native speaker Englishteachers in Hong Kong secondary schools. AsiaPacific Journal of Language in Education, 4, 51–77.

APPENDIX: Transcription Conventions

The following transcription conventions havebeen followed in the analysis of the classroomdata:

Bold highlights MT turns and underscorerefers to LA turns when engaged in interaction.Turns in which MT and LA interaction does nottake place have not been highlighted.MT Main teacherLA Language assistantSS Students speaking in chorusS1 Indicates different students speaking

in each extract, follows numericalorder

(()) Researcher’s comments< > Indicates sounds such as laughter,

sneezes, coughs, etc.[] Indicates repetitionCapital letters Indicates vocal emphasis. . . Indicates pauses in speech segmentsL1 Use of L1 (Spanish)

All names of participants have been changed toprotect subject anonymity.


‘zip your lips’ or ‘keep quiet’: main teachers' and language assistants' classroom...

Documents