International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (1) 2008

The Role of Repetition in CLIL Teacher Discourse:

A Comparative Study at Secondary and Tertiary Levels
Emma Dafouz Milne Ana Llinares García
Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain) Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)

Abstract

The present study is based on the analysis of teacher discourse in two different CLIL
educational contexts: secondary and tertiary settings. Specifically, this research deals with the
subject of teacher repetitions since it is generally believed that repetition is a key feature of
CLIL classrooms, given the added complexity of learning concepts through another language.
Using a Conversation Analysis framework (Tannen, 1989) this paper draws on classroom
video-recordings and transcripts from four sessions, with different teacher profiles across the
content and language continuum. The preliminary results show that repetitions are indeed
present in both settings, especially with a pedagogic function. However, the study also reveals
that there are differences in the types of repetitions and in their functions depending on the
teacher profile and classroom methodology.

Keywords: Classroom discourse analysis, teacher repetition, secondary education, tertiary

education, CLIL

1. Introduction

1. 1. CLIL in secondary and tertiary education in Spanish contexts

In Spain, there are a growing number of Primary and Secondary state schools involved in
CLIL projects. One of the pioneering projects was the result of the agreement between the
British Council and the Spanish Ministry of Education for the teaching of an integrated
curriculum (Spanish/English) in a number of schools ranging from nursery, through primary
to secondary level, in a pilot scheme. This project started in 1996 at the pre-school level, and
has recently reached secondary education. At this level, all the participating schools teach
social sciences (geography and history) in English, while the other subjects selected for the
projects depend on the availability of specialists willing to teach their subject in English. At
secondary level, CLIL teachers need to be content specialists with a high level of English
since the selected subjects are entirely taught in the target language. These schools are even
offering the IGCSE (International General Certificate of Secondary Education) to their
students, thus providing them with equal opportunities to students attending elite private
English schools1.

1
There are also a significant number of CLIL programmes run by different regional governments.

http://www.icrj.eu/11-743 50
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (1) 2008

At the tertiary level, however, the situation is much more heterogeneous, given the autonomy
that Spanish universities enjoy in order to design their undergraduate and graduate degrees
and to offer courses or entire programmes in a foreign language (usually English). In brief,
high education centres are aware of the importance of attracting students, now seen as
potential “customers” (Wilkinson, 2004). Thus, to do so, teaching through English is viewed
by educational authorities as a differentiating force and an added value in any forward looking
university (Dafouz and Núñez, in press). Hence, over 30 institutions in Spain are currently
offering their “bilingual degrees” at the undergraduate level in fields ranging from Business
Administration to Tourism, International Law, Telecommunications or Engineering. By and
large, these bilingual degrees are taught by content specialists with a command of English;
however, unlike the official requirements in secondary education, university professors do not
need to certify their level of English nor do high education institutions need to follow a
common syllabus.

1.2. Discourse analysis in the CLIL classroom

In the last ten years, both in Europe and America, a significant number of research projects
have dealt with the implementation of new CLIL programmes and evaluation of already
established ones (i.e. Snow and Brinton, 1997; Marsh and Langé, 1999). However, research at
the micro level with a clear focus on CLIL participants (teachers and students) has not yet
reached such a high level of interest (Dalton-Puffer and Smit, 2007). As Leung (2005: 250)
points out, we should pay attention to “…how teachers and students use their languages in
teaching and learning activities so that we have a better understanding of what goes on in
bilingual education classrooms in different world locations.”

The structure and features of classroom discourse vary according to different parameters such
as the subject being taught, the age of the students, the language of instruction or the teacher
profile, to name a few. Some general features of classroom discourse are related to teacher
discourse/talk, since it is a well-known fact that teacher talk dominates approximately 2/3 of
classroom time (Chaudron, 1988; Mehan, 1985). In addition, research has also shown that the
most common exchange pattern in classrooms is IRF, (i.e. Initiate, Response, Feedback),
following Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) and that questions are usually formulated by teachers
rather than students. Within the question taxonomy, Long and Sato (1983) refer to
knowledge-checking questions as display questions whereas those to which the teacher does
not have the answer are known as referential questions. According to Tsui (1995), display
questions generate interactions that are typical of pedagogic or didactic discourse, while
referential questions generate interactions typical of social communication (Creese, 2006).

Focusing specifically on CLIL contexts, some recent studies have analysed the role of IRF
exchanges. Dalton-Puffer, for example, refers to this pattern as activator of “the students’
existing reservoir of knowledge” (2007: 18) which leads to trigger learning through forging
connection between old and new knowledge. Nikula (2007) compares IRF exchange patterns
in CLIL and EFL classes concluding that in CLIL contexts this structure is less rigid and that
teachers and learners have the opportunity of engaging in a different type of dialogue, giving
learners more space for interaction.

http://www.icrj.eu/11-743 51
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (1) 2008

1.3. The role of repetition in classroom discourse

The role of repetition in interaction has been one of the research interests of conversational
analysts in their study of social patterns of interaction in conversations. The most common
distinction made in terms of types of repetitions is the one proposed by Tannen (1989) and
Johnstone et al., (1994), which include self-repetition (i.e. repeating what is said by oneself),
and allo-/other-repetition (i.e. repeating what is uttered by another speaker). Tannen also
identifies exact repetition, repetition with variation, and paraphrase. Exact repetition, as its
name suggests, occurs when the speaker repeats a string ipsis litteris. Repetition with
variation may be a question that is repeated as a declarative (or vice-versa), a sentence with
one word modified. Paraphrase, again as expected, occurs when the speaker expresses the
same point with different words. It is also interesting to distinguish between immediate and
displaced repetition (Johnstone, 1994), given the importance of the latter in the establishment
of textual and social cohesiveness.

In the analysis of second/foreign language classroom discourse, the role of repetitions has also
been the focus of a good number of studies. As far as teacher repetitions are concerned, these
usually have the dual function of enhancing comprehension, while concurrently providing the
learners with more opportunities of becoming aware of L2 features (Pica, 1994; Richards and
Lockhart, 1994). In the acquisition of a second language, Tomlin (1994) argues that repetition
is a social act with cognitive consequences. With repetition, the teacher helps the pupil to
understand the sentence produced, and this, in turn, has the cognitive consequence of helping
the learner to transform “input” in the L2 into “intake”.

As far as bilingual contexts are concerned, Llinares’s (2003) study shows that self-repetition
is one of the three most common functions in the language of the teacher, especially in low-
immersion contexts, where instructors feel the need to reinforce the message to make sure that
the learners understand.

2. Research questions and goals of the paper

Some comparative studies in CLIL classroom discourse have focused on EFL/CLIL contexts
(Nikula, 2007) or native/non-native teachers (Llinares and Romero, in press). However, to our
knowledge, there is no research that contrasts CLIL teaching practices at secondary school
and university levels. In this particular paper, thus, we are interested in comparing the
functions of repetitions in two different educational contexts (secondary and tertiary
education) in order to identify differences or similarities in teaching practices, as well as the
conceptualisation of teacher and learner roles.

The research questions put forward are the following:

1. What is the role of repetition in the secondary and tertiary CLIL classrooms analysed?
2. What types of repetitions are used by the teachers in these contexts?
3. In what type of classroom register do these repetitions occur?

http://www.icrj.eu/11-743 52
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (1) 2008

3. Data and instrument of analysis

The set of data that form this paper are a subset of a larger pool which has been collected
since 2006 under two research projects2.

Table 1 summarises the characteristics, participants and subject topics of each context.

Classroom A Classroom B Classroom C Classroom D

Teacher Content and EFL Content teacher Content teacher Content teacher
teacher. with good with EFL
L1=Spanish command of training.
English L1= Spanish L1= Spanish
L1=Spanish
Students 24 22 80 approx. 90 approx.
(n) L1=Spanish L1=Spanish L1 = Spanish L1 = Spanish
Topic Feudal Europe Feudal Europe Literature course Engineering
course
Subject Geography and Geography and North-American Thermodynamic
history history Literature efficiency
Educational Secondary Secondary Tertiary Tertiary
Level Education Education education education
Session 50 minutes 50 minutes 1 h. 15 min. 1 h. 25 min.
length

The secondary school data consist of videotaped classroom sessions with second year students
of history with Spanish as their native language. The data presented here comes from two
groups in different schools working on an end-of-topic discussion of the same history topic
from the curriculum (“Feudal Europe”). Both teachers, native speakers of Spanish, are history
specialists but one of them is also an English specialist who has always worked as an EFL
teacher before becoming a CLIL history teacher (classroom A). The teacher in classroom B is
a content specialist with high competence in the target language. The subjects from the
university context were also videotaped and belong to two different settings: a) second year
English Philology students with Spanish as their native language, and b) second/third year
Aeronautical Engineering students with English as a Lingua Franca3. Both university teachers
are native speakers of Spanish, the main difference between them being that teacher in
classroom C is a content specialist with working experience as an EFL instructor, whereas
teacher in classroom D is a content specialist with no experience in teaching through a foreign
language.

2
Data from the secondary school context comes from a research project financed by the Comunidad Autónoma
de Madrid and the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (09/SHD/017105; CCG06-UAM/HUM-0544; CCG07-
UAM/HUM-1790). Data from the university context belongs to a project funded by the Comunidad de Madrid
and the Universidad Complutense de Madrid (CCG07-UCM/HUM.2602).
3
There were 13 different nationalities represented in the course (Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish,
German, etc). Thus, English is viewed as a lingua franca in this context rather than a foreign language.

http://www.icrj.eu/11-743 53
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (1) 2008

The instrument of analysis for this study draws on Tannen’s (1989) model of self- and allo-
repetition (including also repetitions with variation and paraphrases). In addition, we combine
this taxonomy with Llinares (2003) in her distinction between allo-repetitions that function as
pedagogic feedback and allo-repetitions that function as interactional feedback. While
pedagogic feedback refers to the use of positive or negative evaluation in teacher repetition,
interactional feedback is used to encourage learners’ participation and turn-keeping. Examples
of both types are included in section 4. Finally, we bring in Christie’s (2002) distinction of
two main registers in classroom discourse: regulative and instructional. This register
difference will enable us to identify whether repetition appears more in the organizational part
of the classroom, when the teacher is giving out instructions on how to proceed (i.e. regulative
register), or whether, by contrast, repetition occurs more frequently when the teacher wants to
focus on the content, establish a dialogue with students, and encourage their contributions (i.e.
instructional).

http://www.icrj.eu/11-743 54
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (1) 2008

4. Results

4.1. Results from the secondary school context

The analysis of the secondary school data shows that teacher repetition is more frequent in the
instructional register. In other words, the teachers use more repetitions when they are focusing
on the subject content or the language needed to learn this content. Self-repetition is similarly
used by both teachers, mainly with the aim of enhancing comprehension. They also coincide
in the function of their allo-repetitions: the most frequent is that of pedagogic feedback, as can
be expected from any classroom context. However, the two teachers also show interesting
differences in the way they use feedback. In the case of the group with the content/language
expert teacher (classroom A) more student turns are followed by feedback. On the other hand,
the content expert teacher (classroom B) uses feedback in a much lower degree. This finding
matches Nikula’s study (2007) when she claims that the IRF structure in EFL classes is more
rigid than in CLIL classes. The vast experience of the content/language expert as an EFL
teacher might explain her more frequent interest in teacher-initiated IRF sequences (see
examples 1 and 2 below with the teacher’s use of pedagogic feedback on content and form,
respectively):

Classroom A-Example 1:

TCH: Who were around the roads? No? I’ll give you a clue: Robin Hood
STU1: The rebels
TCH: The rebels. Excellent!

Example 2:

TCH: Yes, but the question was they did not have the same good things in rural areas as they
had in cities. Can you explain that?
STU1: They have less salary in a… rural area than in the city.
TCH: They “had”, past. Right?

Another interesting difference between the two secondary school teachers is the use of
interactional feedback. Although the most frequent type of feedback used by both teachers is
pedagogic, the content/language expert shows fewer instances of interactional feedback.4 As
shown in example 3 below, the use of interactional feedback by the teacher in classroom B
seemed to encourage the students to adopt a more active role in the interaction, allowing for
student-initiated turns (see STU2 below) and thus facilitating the learners’ active participation
in the construction of knowledge through the foreign language:

Classroom B-Example 3:

STU1: Eh … also that … eh … Middle Ages … eh … there were a lot of invasions and now
no.
TCH: There were a lot of invasions… interesting…
STU1: We can stay in our homes without … without being afraid.
STU2: We can … we can … travel.

4
We have also collected data from two classes of history on the same topic with students working in the L1
(Spanish). It was interesting to see that the Spanish L1 history teachers used interactional feedback more
frequently than the CLIL teachers.

http://www.icrj.eu/11-743 55
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (1) 2008

4.2. Results from the university context

As evidenced from the data analysed, there is more teacher repetition in the instructional
register than in the regulative register. In other words, the two university teachers observed
use repetitions more frequently when they are focusing on the subject content rather than
when they are dealing with the dynamics of the session, or regulative register. Specifically in
classroom C (content and EFL teacher) there is a considerable presence of allo-repetitions,
since the instructor is constructing the session on student participation. The teacher is
presenting the content in an inductive way, by prompting from the students the characteristics
of “Fiction” as example 4 shows:

Classroom C-Example 4:

TCH: So, let’s see. What do you think are the elements of fiction? You remembered when
we started the course and we started with the poetry we were discussing the most important
elements of poetry; so, what are the elements of fiction? For example, just tell me one.
Basic elements of fiction.
STU1: The characters.
TCH. The characters. The characters. Another element. Almudena, another element.
STU2: The narrator.
TCH: The narrator, good. The characters, the narrator, more.
STU: The prose?
TCH: The prose, the fiction itself. Eeh, what do you mean, the style?
STU3: XXX (inaudible)
TCH: Ok. All right, the style, like fiction by definition is written in prose, right. Helena?
STU: The th themees
TCH: The themes, all right.

Regarding feedback in allo-repetitions, the data shows that both pedagogic and interactional
feedback is used, with pedagogic feedback being more frequent than interactional. This
finding reveals that by repeating students’ contributions, the instructor aims to make the
subject content clear and accessible while at the same time confirms the validity of students’
input. This type of feedback is sometimes accompanied, although to a lesser extent, by
evaluative comments (e.g. good, all right).

By contrast, in Classroom D (content teacher), allo-repetitions are less frequent since the
teacher does not elaborate the session on students’ contributions but rather adopts a lecturing
style. Overall, teacher D uses self-repetitions to hold the floor while concurrently thinking
what to say next. As example 5 displays, the teacher-student exchange is triggered by the
student’s question of some part of the explanation. The teacher uses self-repetition in the first
instance (and your question was, what was your question) to encourage the student’s
participation. The examples of repetition that follow alternate allo-repetition (the velocity …
the velocity of…?) with self-repetition. While allo-repetition serves the teacher to clarify
problems of content comprehension, by echoing the student’s difficulty and providing an
answer, self-repetitions, which are very frequent in teacher D, seem to act as cohesive devices
that help the speaker to organise his speech and the hearer to follow better. In other words,
self-repetitions, as in case classroom C, enable the teacher to underline key ideas and ensure
that the students understand the main concepts.

http://www.icrj.eu/11-743 56
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (1) 2008

Classroom D-Example 5:

TCH: And your question was, what was your question?

STU1: XXX (Inaudible)
TCH: For the area? Or to increase the area perhaps?
STU1: uummmm
TCH: Or to increase the..
STU1:.the velocity
TCH: The velocity of…?
STU1: The velocity of the valve
TCH: Yes, the characteristic velocity of in the valve, ok? Yes we want to increase this
value. To increase this value, okay, perhaps, it’s not correct all because we want to increase
this value, we want to increase that but we can increase only to the half of the speed of the
sound, has an upper limit.
STU1: (…)
TCH: Yes, we have to increase the area…to reduce… for reduce, perhaps, the area of the
piston, but the area of the piston is fixed by the maximum…because the area of the piston
is the work in the piston…the work is more or less the pressure multiplied by the area.

4.3. Secondary and tertiary data compared

On the whole, there are similar uses of teacher repetitions in both contexts as regards register.
More specifically, in both levels repetitions are more frequently used in the instructional
register than in the regulative register. Another similarity lies in the fact that CLIL teachers,
irrespective of their background and teaching context (secondary and tertiary), seem to favour
pedagogic feedback over interactional feedback. The use of pedagogic feedback does not
seem to be connected to L2 practice. In other words, teachers C and D in the university
context as well as teacher B in secondary do not incorporate repetitions in their discourse to
exemplify, correct or practice any particular linguistic item, but rather to ensure that subject
content is rightly understood. It is only the secondary teacher with EFL experience (teacher
A) who occasionally uses pedagogic feedback with a linguistic focus (see example 2).

As far as interactional feedback is concerned, there seem to be certain differences depending

on the teacher profile. Drawing on our data, interactional feedback is less represented in the
case of teachers from an EFL tradition (as teacher A in the secondary context) or those with
less teaching experience in the target language (as teacher D in the tertiary context). The
dichotomy can be then presented as follows: it is important for the CLIL teacher to be aware
of the language needs of his/her specific subject (Llinares, Dafouz and Whittaker, 2007;
Llinares and Whittaker, 2007) and language awareness is something that content teachers
sometimes lack. However, implementing traditional FL classroom interaction practices (based
on the aforementioned IRF model) in CLIL contexts may not provide sufficient opportunities
for more authentic communication in the foreign language.

http://www.icrj.eu/11-743 57
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (1) 2008

5. Conclusions and implications

Given the qualitative nature of this study and the limited sample, findings need to be
interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, this paper has yielded some interesting results
regarding teacher interactional practices in CLIL contexts, specifically in the use of teacher
repetitions. In secondary and tertiary CLIL classrooms, repetitions are used by teachers as a
strategy to reinforce the understanding of subject content (instructional register). In addition,
this qualitative analysis has served to identify a higher number of allo-repetitions over self-
repetitions in both educational levels, and the predominance of pedagogic feedback over
interactional feedback.

Interestingly, there are differences in the presence of interactional feedback, however, these
are more related to the teacher profile and experience than to the educational context. The use
of this type of feedback in the classrooms observed has shown a more active involvement of
the students’ role in interaction and seems to offer more opportunities for language learning
(Llinares, 2003). We believe this type of interactional practice might also have positive
effects in the CLIL students’ construction of content knowledge.

References

Chaudron, C.: 1988, Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Christie, F.: 2002, Classroom Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum

Creese, A.: 2006, Supporting Talk? Partnership Teachers in Classroom Interaction, in Journal
of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education (9) 4: 434-453.

Dafouz, E. and Núñez, B. (in press) CLIL in higher education: devising a new learning
landscape, in Dafouz, E. and M. Guerrini (eds.) CLIL across education levels: opportunities
for all. Madrid: Richmond Publishing.

Dalton-Puffer, C.: 2007, Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Dalton-Puffer, C. and Smit U.: 2007, Introduction. In Dalton-Puffer, C. and U. Smit (eds.)
Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. pp. 1-13.

Johnstone, B. et al.: 1994, Repetition in Discourse: A Dialogue. In Johnstone, B. (ed.)

Repetition in Discourse: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1994. 1-20.

Leung, C.: 2005, Language and content in bilingual education. Linguistics and Education 16:
238–252.

Llinares García, A.: 2003, Repetition and young learners´ initiations in the L2: a corpus
driven analysis. In Archer, D., Rayson, P., Wilson, A. and T. McEnery (eds.) Proceedings of
the Corpus Linguistics 2003 Conference (237-245)

http://www.icrj.eu/11-743 58
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (1) 2008

Llinares García, A. and Romero Trillo, J.: (in press) Discourse markers and the pragmatics of
native and non-native teachers in a CLIL corpus. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed) Pragmatics and
Corpus Linguistics. A mutualistic entente. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Long, M. and Sato, C.: 1983, Classroom foreign talk discourse: Forms and functions of
teachers
questions. In H. W. Seliger and M. H. Long (eds.) Classroom oriented research in
language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. (268-285)

Marsh, D and Langé, G. (eds.): 1999, Implementing content and language integrated
learning. A research-driven TIE-CLIL foundation course reader. Jyväskylä: University of
Jyväskylä.

Mehan, H.: 1985, The structure of classroom discourse. In van Dijk, T. (ed.) Handbook of
discourse analysis vol.3. Discourse and dialogue. London: Academic Press. (pp. 119-131)

Nikula, T.: 2007, The IRF pattern and space for interaction: comparing CLIL and EFL
classrooms. In Dalton-Puffer, C. and Smit, U. (eds.) Empirical Perspectives on CLIL
Classroom Discourse. Frankfurt: Peter Lang (179-204)

Pica T.: 1994, Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second-language learning
conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning 44 (3): 493-527.

Richards J.C. and Lockhart, C.: 1994, Reflective teaching in second language classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M.: 1975, Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Snow, M.A. and Brinton, D.M. (eds.).: 1997, The content based classroom. Perspectives on
integrating language and content. White Plains: Longman

Tannen, D.: 1989, Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tomlin R.S.: 1994, Repetition in second language acquisition. In Johnstone B (ed.) Repetition
in discourse interdisciplinary perspectives. Norwwod, NJ: Ablex.

Tsui. A. B. M.: 1995, Introducing Classroom Interaction. London: Penguin.

Wilkinson, R. (ed.): 2004, Integrating Content and Language: Meeting the challenge of a
Multilingual Higher Education. Netherlands: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.

http://www.icrj.eu/11-743 59