Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Reveals enhanced instruction-giving practices in pre-service teachers, indicating potential for effective training methods.
Background Instruction-giving (IG) is central to classroom interaction in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), yet it is rarely taught explicitly in pre-service CLIL teacher education. In response, the authors redesigned a CLIL practicum course and introduced targeted IG training in the second year. Aims This study (a) described the redesign of an IG-focused training component and (b) examined whether the redesigned course was associated with differences in student teachers’ IG practices across cohorts. Sample(s) Fifty-two pre-service teachers in an eight-semester Primary English Language Teaching program (PELT) in Germany implemented CLIL-based projects with 180 pupils (ages 9–10) across two consecutive cohorts (2024, n = 25; 2025, n = 27). Methods The study compared a baseline course implementation (2024) with a redesigned implementation that included explicit IG training (2025) informed by previous research. Audio-recorded classroom discourse from a randomly selected subsample of STs (n = 20; 10 per cohort) was segmented into CLIL-related IG episodes and analyzed using eight IG principles rated on a four-point scale. Quantitative comparisons were complemented by qualitative classroom discourse analysis and field notes. Results Mean overall IG scores were higher in 2025 (M = 3.16) than in 2024 (M = 2.79). The largest differences concerned clarity, responding to non-understanding, and strategic L1 use. Differences were smaller for sequencing and multimodality, and modeling did not differ across cohorts in this dataset. Conclusions The findings suggest that explicit IG training is a teachable component of pre-service teachers’ instructional repertoire. While the cross-cohort design does not support causal claims, consistent descriptive and qualitative differences suggest that explicit IG training holds pedagogical promise for CLIL teacher education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kos et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: