Data Analysis Procedures

The data analysis procedure was undertaken in five steps: As a first step in the analysis, the initial target lesson recordings were transcribed. It should be noted that the initial target lesson recordings were recorded by hand by the researcher and this was done during the observations and also following the interviews; these were then checked and revised based on the class videos. Only those interactions in the teacher-

fronted activities that were relevant to the content being taught (i.e., maths) were transcribed, interpreted and then analysed. The field notes and semi-structured interviews with the teachers where interrogated to provide confirmation and

contextual information about the interactions. It should be noted that the classroom interactions related to personal communications and classroom management were not transcribed nor analysed. The teacher-fronted activities varied from 12 to 20 minutes in each one hour maths lesson, and so the scores were normalised by dividing them by the length of the lessons. Once this was done the results in the CLIL Teacher’s observation Grid were counted and a total was given.

For the second step, all initial transcriptions and number counts were checked for accuracy. As described previously the video recordings made by the teachers at the school were used to complete this check. In this way, all errors and omissions could be identified and corrected.

Next, the transcripts were coded with the basis of analysis being turns – with one turn containing one or many words and several utterances in combination. For example, in Excerpt 1 where the teacher was holding a triangle she stated her instruction using two sentences, and these counted as one ‘turn’.

Excerpt 1:

Teacher:今天林老 ， 。 ？

(Today, Lin Laoshi is going to teach different shapes, its sizes and colours. What shape is it?)

A total of 533 turns formed the basis of analysis.

Next, to analyze the actions of teachers and responses of students in the CLIL classroom, various interactional features were categorized to address relevant research questions. For example, the research question about the teaching strategies

that were provided to support SLA in the class interactions, the MFI, CF, FFE and Use of L1 by the teachers were observed. In contrast MFO and Use of L1 by the students were documented to examine how the students responded to such interactions.

Specific details about these categories of analysis (as per Table 2) are as follows: i. Meaning-focused input (MFI) is where the teacher provided help to the

students’ comprehension by using images, objects, videos, or pictures. In this way, the understanding of their students was scaffolded.

ii. Meaning-focused output (MFO) is where it appears that students pushed themselves to produce comprehensible output.

iii. Corrective feedback (CF) is where teachers provided feedback to the students both in terms of their accuracy and comprehension.

iv. Focus on form episodes (FFE) is where the teacher drew students’ attention to the linguistic forms explicitly by providing emphasis and comments or giving gestures.

v. Use of L1 is where teachers or their students employ L1 (English) during their interactions.

The coding within each of these categories was of two types, what the teachers did in their interactions and what the students did in response. The student interactions also included FFE that they initiated.

Then, a second rater who also speaks both Mandarin and English checked the coding of 25% of the data. Disagreements were discussed and coding modified as

appropriate. The same second rater then coded the remainder of the data

independently. Simple agreement of 89% was gained. The disagreements between the two raters were then checked and coded by a third rater.

As a last step in the analysis of teachers’ behaviours, the frequency of each category of analysis was calculated by dividing it by the observing hours of analysis for each

term and each year respectively (Table 3). For example, the occurrences of corrective feedback (CF) made by the CLIL teacher in year 1, were calculated per term and for the whole year (i.e., 6 CF over 2 classes in term 1, 10 CF over 2 classes in term 2, 7 CF over 2 classes in term 3; 17 CF over 6 classes in total), and then it was divided by the number of total observing hours per term and per year (i.e., 6 CF divided by 2 hours, resulting in 3 CF per hour in term 1; so as to 5 CF per hour in term 2 and 3.5 CF per hour in term 3; 2.83 CF per hour in total). In this way, the researcher

compared the changes in teaching strategies made by each CLIL teacher over time. Specifically to show the changes that occurred for the different strategies over three terms of the same academic year the results were tabulated showing the MFI, CR, FFE, and L1 use for the teachers over the three terms (these results appear in the following chapter).

Similarly, for the analysis of students’ responses to the teacher interactions, the number of each category were calculated in the same way, dividing the occurrences of each by the time per semester and over the whole year in total. It should be noted that the students’ responses mostly came from the same or a small number of

students in the teacher-fronted activities only (Note: Again these results appear in the following chapter).

Finally, a comparison was made to examine the differences for each category between the four year groups, both from the perspectives of teachers’ interaction strategies and the students’ responses.