‘What’s the Moment Thingy?’– On the Emergence of Subject-Specific Knowledge in CLIL Classroom Interaction

  • Tarja NikulaEmail author
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 32)


Situated in the European CLIL context where mainstream schools may opt for teaching content subjects through the medium of a foreign or second language, this paper explores secondary school physics classrooms, taught through English in Finland. The focus is on the role of classroom interaction in the emergence of subject-specific knowledge during six consecutive lessons, with particular attention to how one key concept in physics, ‘moment’, is handled. This micro-longitudinal approach shows that while the students are struggling between the everyday and the academic meanings of the word ‘moment’ throughout, there are also clear signs of progression. These signs show, for example, in students moving from the initial stages of confusion relating to the meaning and subject-relevant use of the term ‘moment’, via teacher-scaffolded practice, towards appropriating its subject-specific usages.


Content Subject Classroom Interaction Bilingual Education Language Teacher Rotational Acceleration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Achugar, M., & Carpenter, P. D. (2014). Tracking movement toward academic language in multilingual classrooms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bovellan, E. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs about learning and language as reflected in their views of teaching materials for content and language integrated learning (CLIL), Jyväskylä studies in humanities 231. Jyväskylä: The University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  3. Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  5. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualizing content and language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253.Google Scholar
  8. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 29–54). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  9. Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  10. Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning at school in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice European Unit.
  11. Fang, Z. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(7), 587–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forey, G., & Polias, J. (2017). Multi-semiotic resources providing maximal input in teaching science through English. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 145–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  14. Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jakonen, T. (2014). Knowing matters: How students address lack of knowledge in bilingual classroom interaction. Jyväskylä studies in humanities 235. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  16. Jakonen, T., & Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kääntä, L., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2013). Manual guiding in peer group interaction: A resource for organizing a practical class. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(4), 322–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 117–142). Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Lemke, J. (2004). Intertextuality and educational research. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 3–16). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2010). Historical explanations as situated practice in content and language integrated learning. Classroom Discourse, 1, 46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2010). Writing and speaking in the history class: A comparative analysis of CLIL and first language contexts. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 125–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. McCabe, A., & Whittaker, R. (2017). Genre and appraisal in CLIL history texts: Developing the voice of the historian. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 105–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  24. Meyer, O., Coyle, C., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – Mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mežek, S., Pecorari, D., Shaw, P., Irvine, A., & Malmström, H. (2015). Learning subject-specific L2 terminology: The effect of medium and order of exposure. Language for English for Specific Purposes, 38, 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moate, J. (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense of professional integrity in the CLIL classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morton, T. (2010). Using a genre-based approach to integrating content and language in CLIL: The example of secondary history. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 81–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nikula, T. (2015). Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 54, 14–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nikula, T., & Mård-Miettinen, K. (2014). Language learning in immersion and CLIL classrooms. In J.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. 2014 installment (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  30. Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Llinares, A. (2013). CLIL classroom discourse. Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 70–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2016a). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  32. Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F. (2016b). More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 1–25). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  33. Pappas, C. C., Varelas, M., Barry, A., & Rife, A. (2003). Dialogic inquiry around information texts: The role of intertextuality in constructing scientific understandings in urban primary classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 13(4), 435–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling. A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Seedhouse, P. (2010). A framework for conceptualising learning in applied linguistics. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising learning in applied linguistics (pp. 240–256). London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vollmer, H. (2008). Constructing tasks for content and language integrated learning and assessment. In J. Eckerth & S. Siekmann (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching. Theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 225–287). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  38. Wortham, S., & Reyes, A. (2015). Discourse analysis beyond the speech event. Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Applied Language StudiesUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations