Joint Planning of Subject and Language Teachers to Implement CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) in Chemistry Lessons
Loading...
Authors
Bejerano, Mary Joy
Sakhiyeva, Assel
Segizbayeva, Baktygul
Maksutova, Zhansaule
Issue Date
2025
Educational Level
ISCED Level 3 Upper secondary education
Curriculum Area
Geographical Setting
Kazakhstan
Abstract
Background and purpose: This study addresses the challenges and opportunities of implementing Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) strategies at Nazarbayev Intellectual School (NIS) in Uralsk, Kazakhstan. As part of the school’s trilingual education model, CLIL integrates subject knowledge and academic language across Kazakh, Russian, and English. Despite its importance, challenges such as inconsistent joint planning (JP) and misalignment of linguistic and content objectives persist. Research by Mehisto et al. (2017) and Coyle et al. (2010) highlights the transformative potential of collaboration between subject and language teachers in enhancing CLIL. However, little is known about these processes in Kazakhstan’s multilingual education context. This study explores how systematic collaboration improves teaching practices and student outcomes.
Aims: This study aimed to explore how joint lesson planning and co-teaching enhance students' academic language proficiency in Chemistry. It investigated the impact of collaborative instructional strategies, shared resources, and structured scaffolding on student learning across different ability levels. The research also sought to refine teaching approaches that help students construct clear, well-structured scientific explanations and effectively use subject-specific terminology in multiple languages.
Study design: The study was conducted with Chemistry and language teachers at NIS, involving nine Year 11 students (aged 16-17) in a series of three research lessons (RL1, RL2, RL3). Data were collected through teacher interviews, classroom observations, and student assessments. Collaborative lesson planning sessions were held to co-develop instructional materials, including structured writing templates, terminology guides, and guided questioning strategies. The impact of these interventions was measured by comparing pre- and post-intervention student performance in Chemistry-related analytical writing and scientific discussions.
Findings: The study revealed notable improvements in students’ ability to integrate Chemistry-specific academic language into structured responses. Students demonstrated enhanced comprehension and writing skills, particularly in lab reports and extended explanations. The use of scaffolding techniques, peer discussions, and co-teaching strategies contributed to this progress. High-achieving students displayed strong analytical writing skills, while average and struggling learners benefited from structured templates and guided questioning to improve clarity and coherence
Conclusions, originality, value and implications: The research provides a practical model for integrating content and language objectives. Future teaching will prioritize structured collaboration and shared resource development, with regular JP sessions to strengthen CLIL practices. These findings offer valuable insights for further development of effective CLIL strategies across subjects
Aims: This study aimed to explore how joint lesson planning and co-teaching enhance students' academic language proficiency in Chemistry. It investigated the impact of collaborative instructional strategies, shared resources, and structured scaffolding on student learning across different ability levels. The research also sought to refine teaching approaches that help students construct clear, well-structured scientific explanations and effectively use subject-specific terminology in multiple languages.
Study design: The study was conducted with Chemistry and language teachers at NIS, involving nine Year 11 students (aged 16-17) in a series of three research lessons (RL1, RL2, RL3). Data were collected through teacher interviews, classroom observations, and student assessments. Collaborative lesson planning sessions were held to co-develop instructional materials, including structured writing templates, terminology guides, and guided questioning strategies. The impact of these interventions was measured by comparing pre- and post-intervention student performance in Chemistry-related analytical writing and scientific discussions.
Findings: The study revealed notable improvements in students’ ability to integrate Chemistry-specific academic language into structured responses. Students demonstrated enhanced comprehension and writing skills, particularly in lab reports and extended explanations. The use of scaffolding techniques, peer discussions, and co-teaching strategies contributed to this progress. High-achieving students displayed strong analytical writing skills, while average and struggling learners benefited from structured templates and guided questioning to improve clarity and coherence
Conclusions, originality, value and implications: The research provides a practical model for integrating content and language objectives. Future teaching will prioritize structured collaboration and shared resource development, with regular JP sessions to strengthen CLIL practices. These findings offer valuable insights for further development of effective CLIL strategies across subjects
Description
Keywords (free text)
CLIL , joint planning , teacher professional development , student academic performance , chemistry education