Pupil Initiatives and Responses in Russian CLIL Methodological Instruction in Primary Education

1. Pupil Initiatives and Responses in Russian CLIL Methodological Instruction in Primary Education Maarit Kaunisto Primary school teacher in Finnish-Russian school in Helsinki/University of Helsinki/ Department of Teacher Education 8.9.2016

2. CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) = language is used as a tool In Finland CLIL instruction has been studied mainly from the perspective of learning outcome and teaching, English or Swedish as a target language (L2) (See e.g. Jäppinen 2002, Järvinen 1999, Markkanen, Skinnari 2012, Bovellan 2014) Research in natural classroom interaction in CLIL classrooms has been studied much less (see Nikula 2005, 2007, 2008 and Kääntä 2008, 2013, Dalton-Puffer 2005, 2007)) English as a target language My focus is on Russian as a target language (L2) in natural classroom interaction

3. Theoretical Framework Sociocultural theory (Vygotsky 1979 and 1982) ZPD(The Zone of Proximal Development) Functional-Pragmatic approach (environment, interaction, spoken language) Scaffolding

4. Scaffolding In advanced unplanned lexical and paralinguistic (prosody and breaks) support ●prompting questions, recasts, repetitions,feedback ●reference to pupils prior knowledge ●emphasis, highlighting, intonation ●routine phrases ●”prototypical cycle”: initiative-response-follow-up/feedback

5. Excerpt 1 (IRF) 1 T: ноги есть ? ноги I are there any legs? legs 2 Ss: нет R/CHORUS no 3 T: [одна рука, голова - F one arm, head -

6. Setting and The Unit of Analysis The data ●the target group consists of 18 pupils: 7 girls and 11 boys (Russian as L2) ●theempirical data consist of approximately 45 minutes of interaction videotaped in the classroom over a period of two years (four samples selected for analysis/average length of each sample is 10 minutes) ●IRF-exchange (prototypical cycle in teacher-led classroom interaction

7. The Methodology ●discourse analysis ●ethnographic participant observation ●longitudinal study ( 2013-2015) ●transcribed by applying conventions of conversation analysis

8. The Research Questions • What kind of initiatives are made by the pupils? • What kind of responses are made by the pupils? • What kind of scaffolding occurs in the context of these initiatives and responses?

9. Initiatives and Responses made by Pupilsin Predictable Classroom Discourse (IRF) ●Initiatives made by pupils are always valuable and tell us about the development of discourse skills (see Tainio 2007; Ellis 2012) ●Responsiveness often starts with different teacher questions (open-closed, displayed- non-displayed), ●Responses are quite short ●Formulaic speech (routine phrases)

10. Results During the first year in CLIL instruction there were 60 times more initiatives made by the teacher than made by the pupils.

11. The Distribution of Teacher-Initiated and Pupil-Initiated Turns S/I=Pupil-Initiated I= Teacher-Initiated

12. The Distribution of Pupil-Initiatives in Mother Tongue (L1) and Target Language (L2)

13. Scaffolding Strategies in Early CLIL-Instruction ●teacher`s display questions (closed), prompts ( Dalton-Puffer; Nikula; Lightbown & Spada ) ●mechanic, predictable questions ( Savijärvi; Mård) ●teacher`s evaluation immediately after pupils` responses ( Södergård) ●humour and good atmosphere ( Tainio) ●recycling of language elements (also peer scaffolding) ( Donato; Savijärvi;Mård) ●the IRF-cycle itself ( Ellis;Niemelä;Nikula;Dalton-Puffer) ●language agreement in the classroom ●emphasizing, repetition, intonation, breaks

14. Responses Individual Responses (R ) Choral Responses (R/CHORUS)

15. The Distribution of the Responses made by the Pupils

16. The Distribution of Mother Tongue Responses (L1) and Target Language Responses (L2) Made by the Pupils

17. Most responses are short, single-byte words prompted by the teacher’s closed, alternative questions, which the teacher often repeats and emphasizes prosodically. In the IRF3 sequence a large part of the pupils` responses is interpreted as mechanic routine phrases.

18. Excerpt 2 ”How are you?” 1 T: доброе утро I good morning {THE PUPILS ARE STANDING UP} • какое у вас настроение? how are you ? 3 Ss: спасибо [хорошо R/CHORUS thank you good • спасибо хорошее] thank you i`m fine

19. Excerpt 3 ”One legs” 1 T: a ноги есть ? ноги I and are there any legs? legs 2: Ss нет R/CHORUS no 3 T: [одна рука, голова - F one arm, a head- 4 A: (под юбочкой наверно) (xxx)] (may be under the skirt) (xxx)] 5 Henri: [одна ноги R one legs

20. Excerpt 4 ”The mouth” 5 T: ещё раз - I once more- 6 T+Ss : пи-ще-ва-ре-ние R/CHORUS digestion 7 T: а это какая часть? I and what is this part? {SHOWING THE PICTURE} 8 T: первое – I the first- 9 Tiina : рот R mouth 10 Väinö : [рот R [mouth 11 Siru: рот R mouth 12 T: часть где] пища, обрабатывается F the part (of digestion) where the food, is processing 13 Väinö: рот R mouth 14 T: это рот F it is a mouth

21. Discussion The number and the length of the target language (L2) utterances made by the pupils increase during the two years. The responses made in the mother tongue (L1) will be dropped out and initiatives made in the Russian language (L2) increase. The situated scaffolding seems to stimulate individual and choral responses even though they are still very limited. Development of social skills of the pupils. Restrictions What next?

22. References 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: Jyväskylän yliopisto. Saatavissa: https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/44277/978-951-39-5809-1_vaitos20092014.pdf?sequence=1 Bruner, J. 1985. Vygotsky: a historical and conceptual perspective. Teoksessa J.V. Wertsch (toim.) Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21–34. Dalton-Puffer, C. 2007. Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Language Learning & Language Teaching vol.20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V. Donato, R. 1994. Collective Scaffolding in Second Language Learning. Teoksessa P. Lantolf & G. Appel (toim.) Vygotskyan Approaches to Second Language research. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 33–56. Ellis, Rod R. 2012. Language Teaching Research & Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Jäppinen, A.-K. 2002. Ajattelu ja sisältöjen oppiminen vieraskielisessä opetuksessa. Tutkimusraportti 1/3. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopistopaino. Järvinen, H.-M. 1999. Acquisition of English in Content and Language Integrated Learning at Elementary Level in the Finnish Comprehensive School. Turun yliopiston julkaisuja B 232. Turku: Turun yliopisto. Kääntä, L. 2008. Opettajan arvioivat vuorot oppilaiden toiminnan ohjailemisen keinoina englanninkielisessä alkuopetuksessa. Teoksessa S. Leppänen, T. Nikula & L. Kääntä (toim.) Kolmas kotimainen. Lähikuvia englannin kielen käytöstä Suomessa. Tietolipas 224. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura, 73–106. Kääntä, L. & Haddington, P. 2011. Johdanto multimodaaliseen vuorovaikutukseen. Teoksessa L. Kääntä & P. Haddington (toim.) Kieli, keho ja vuorovaikutus. Multimodaalinen näkökulma sosiaaliseen toimintaan. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden seura, 11–45. Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. 2006. How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lyster, R. 2007. Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ProQuest ebrary.

23. Markkanen, M. 2012. ”Hei, mä opin tän asian enkuks!” Toimintatutkimus ympäristötiedon asiasisältöjen ja vieraan kielen oppimisesta sekä opettamisesta englanninkielisissä oppituokioissa. Turun yliopiston julkaisuja C 346. Turku: Turun yliopisto. Mård, K. 2002. Språkbadsbarn kommunicerar på andra språket. Fallstudier på daghemsnivå. Vaasan yliopisto: Acta Wasaensia 100. Språkvetenskap 21. Niemelä, N. 2008. Interaktion i helklass under ett tema i språkbad. Vaasan yliopisto: Acta Wasaensia 194. Språkvetenskap 39. Nikula, T. 2005. English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: Interactional effects and pragmatic implications. Linguistics and Education, 16 (1), 27–58. Nikula, T. 2007. The IRF pattern and space for interaction: comparing CLIL and EFL classrooms. Teoksessa C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (toim.) Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 179–204. Nikula, T. 2008. Oppilaiden osallistuminen luokkahuonevuorovaikutukseen englanninkielisessä aineenopetuksessa. Teoksessa S. Leppänen, T. Nikula & L. Kääntä (toim.) Kolmas kotimainen. Lähikuvia englannin kielen käytöstä Suomessa. Tietolipas 224. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura, 42–72. Park, Y. 2014. The Roles of Third-Turn Repeats in Two L2 Classroom Interactional Contexts. Applied Linguistics, 35 (2), 145–167. Savijärvi, M. 2011. Yhteisestä toiminnasta yhteiseen kieleen. Keskustelunanalyyttinen tutkimus toisen kielen oppimisesta kielikylpypäiväkodin arkitilanteissa. Saatavissa: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/28155/yhteises.pdf?sequence=1 Sinclair, J. M. & R. M. Coulthard 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. The English used by teachers and pupils. Lontoo: Oxford University Press. Skinnari, K. 2012. ”Tässä ryhmässä olen aika hyvä”. Ekologinen näkökulma kielenoppija-identiteetteihin peruskoulun viidennen ja kuudennen luokan englannin opetuksessa. Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities 188. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto. Saatavissa: https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/40499/978-951-39-4904-4.pdf?sequence=1 Södergård, M. 2002. Interaktion i språkbadsdaghem. Lärarstrategier och barnens andraspråksproduktion. Vaasan yliopisto: Acta Wasaensia 98. Språkvetenskap 20. Tainio, L. (toim.) 2007. Vuorovaikutusta luokkahuoneessa. Näkökulmana keskustelunanalyysi. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopistopaino. Vygotsky, L.S. 1979. Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. USA: Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data.

24. Thank you!