1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of The effects of instruction on students’ argumentative scientific writing in a Basque medium of instruction setting
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present quasi-experimental study explores the effects of instruction on secondary students’ scientific argumentative writing in a Basque medium of instruction program. Secondary students ( = 105) completed written tasks before and after a unit on energy in their science class as part of this investigation. The experimental group ( = 61) additionally took part in three, one-hour sessions focused on scientific argumentation via instruction in cognitive discourse functions (Dalton-Puffer, 2013), while the control group ( = 44) completed the unit on energy without the additional instruction on argumentation. The final corpus of 210 texts was analysed using Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern (1958). ANOVAs showed that the experimental group’s use of argumentation strategies increased significantly, while the control group’s use of such strategies did not increase. Thus, the results show that instruction on argumentation helps students to write better argumentative compositions. These findings suggest that instruction in the use of Cognitive Discourse Functions allows for academic language learning in bilingual education contexts. The pedagogical implications and future research directions of this study’s findings are discussed.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.23014.gar
2024-09-03
2024-09-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jicb.23014.gar
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aldekoa, A., Manterola, I. & Idiazabal, I.
    (2020) A trilingual teaching sequence for oral presentation skills in Basque, Spanish and English. The Language Learning Journal, (), –. 10.1080/09571736.2020.1741666
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1741666 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arias-Hermoso, R., Imaz Agirre, A., & Garro Larrañaga, E.
    (2024) A comparison between input modalities and languages in source-based multilingual argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, , 100813. 10.1016/j.asw.2024.100813
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100813 [Google Scholar]
  3. Asterhan, C., & Schwarz, B.
    (2016) Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, (), –. 10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bailey, A. L., & Butler, F.
    (2003) An evidentiary framework for operationalizing academic language for broad application to K–12 education: A design document (CSE Report 611). Education, (), –. https://cresst.org/wp-content/uploads/R611.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Banegas, D. L.
    (2012) CLIL teacher development: Challenges and experiences. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, (), –. 10.5294/laclil.2012.5.1.4
     https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2012.5.1.4 [Google Scholar]
  6. Banegas, D. L., & Mearns, T.
    (2023) The language quadriptych in content and language integrated learning: Findings from a collaborative action research study. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Advance online publication. 10.1080/01434632.2023.2281393
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2281393 [Google Scholar]
  7. Beacco, J. C., Fleming, M., Goullier, F., Thurmann, E., & Vollmer, H.
    (2016) A handbook for curriculum development and teacher training: the language dimension in all Subjects. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/a-handbook-for-curriculum-development-and-teacher-training-the-languag/16806af387
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C.
    (2000) Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, (), –. 10.1080/095006900412284
     https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284 [Google Scholar]
  9. Breeze, R., & Gerns Jiménez-Villarejo, P.
    (2019) Building literacies in secondary school history: The specific contribution of academic writing support. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, (), –. 10.21283/2376905X.10.149
     https://doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.10.149 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cenoz, J.
    (2015) Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different?Language, Culture and Curriculum, (), –. 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2023) Plurilingual education in the Basque Autonomous Community. InJ. M. Cots (Ed.), Profiling plurilingual education: A pilot study of four Spanish autonomous communities (pp.–). Edicions de la Universitat de Lleida.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Colmenero, K., & Lasagabaster, D.
    (2023) Native and non-native teachers in a minority language: An analysis of stakeholders’ opinions. International Journal of Bilingualism, (), –. 10.1177/13670069221149671
     https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069221149671 [Google Scholar]
  13. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2017) December 2017 Council Conclusions. Retrieved: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/32204/14-final-conclusions-rev1-en.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O.
    (2021) Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108914505
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108914505 [Google Scholar]
  15. Crammond, J.
    (1998) The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, (), –. 10.1177/0741088398015002004
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088398015002004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Crossley, S. A., Tian, Y., & Wan, Q.
    (2022) Argumentation features and essay quality: Exploring relationships and incidence counts. Journal of Writing Research, (), –. 10.17239/jowr‑2022.14.01.01
     https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2022.14.01.01 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cummins, J.
    (1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2021) Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts. Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2007) Discourse in Content-and-Language-Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.20
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.20 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2013) A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/eujal‑2013‑0011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2016) Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. InT. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.–). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145‑005
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-005 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dalton-Puffer, C., & Bauer-Marschallinger, S.
    (2019) Cognitive discourse functions meet historical competences: Towards an integrated pedagogy in CLIL history education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, (), –. 10.1075/jicb.17017.dal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17017.dal [Google Scholar]
  23. Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T.
    (2014) “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, (), –. 10.1093/applin/amu010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu010 [Google Scholar]
  24. de Bruin, A., Carreiras, M., & Duñabeitia, J. A.
    (2017) The BEST dataset of language proficiency. Frontiers in Psychology, , –. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00522
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00522 [Google Scholar]
  25. Erduran, S.
    (2007) Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. InS. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (pp.–). Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6670‑2_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_3 [Google Scholar]
  26. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J.
    (2004) TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, (), –. 10.1002/sce.20012
     https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012 [Google Scholar]
  27. EUSTAT
    EUSTAT (2023) Students enrolled in Obligatory Secondary Education (ESO) by language model in the Basque Country. Retrieved from: https://en.eustat.eus/indic/indicadoresgraficosvista.aspx?idgraf=16358&opt=0&tem=300
  28. Ferretti, R. P. & Fan, Y.
    (2016) Argumentative writing. InC. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.–). The Guilford Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. García-Mila, M. & Andersen, C.
    (2007) Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. InS. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp.–). Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6670‑2_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_2 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gerns, P.
    (2023a) Building scientific knowledge in English: Integrating content, cognition and communication in secondary school CLIL biology. Journal of Language and Education, (), –. 10.17323/jle.2023.17569
     https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.17569 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2023b) Qualitative insights and a first evaluation tool for teaching with cognitive discourse function: “Comparing” in the CLIL science classroom. Porta Linguarum, , –. 10.30827/portalin.vi40.26619
     https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi40.26619 [Google Scholar]
  32. IKASELKAR
    IKASELKAR (2016) EKI Proiektua. NATuraren zientziak: energiaren beharra, arazo iturri (irakasleentzako gida). [Translated title: EKI Project. Nature Science: the need for energy, a source of problems (teachers’ guide)].
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Izura, C., Cuetos, F., & Brysbaert, M.
    (2014) Lextale-Esp: A test to rapidly and efficiently assess the Spanish vocabulary size. Psicológica, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A. & Duschl, R. A.
    (2000) “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, (), –. 10.1002/1098‑237X(200011)84:6<757::AID‑SCE5>3.0.CO;2‑F
     https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F [Google Scholar]
  35. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S.
    (2007) Argumentation in science education: An overview. InS. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in science education (pp.–). Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6670‑2_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C.
    (1998) Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Sciences Education, (), –. 10.1080/0950069980200707
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200707 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A.
    (2002) Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, (), –. 10.1002/sce.10024
     https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kuhn, D. & Modrek, A. S.
    (2021) Choose your evidence. Scientific thinking where it may most count. Science & Education, , –. 10.1007/s11191‑021‑00209‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00209-y [Google Scholar]
  39. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M.
    (2010) Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, (), –. 10.1093/elt/ccp082
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp082 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lemhöfer, K. & Broersma, M.
    (2012) Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behaviour Research Methods, , –. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0146‑0
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lersundi, A.
    (2023) Arloetako alfabetatzearen azterketa batxilergoko diziplinarteko proiektu batean. Kasu azterketa. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mondragon University, Translated title: Analysis of subject-specific literacies in a multidisciplinary project in upper-secondary education. Case study]. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11984/5964
  42. Li, X., Wang, W., & Li, Y.
    (2022) Systematically reviewing the potential of scientific argumentation to promote multidimensional conceptual change in science education. International Journal of Science Education, (), –. 10.1080/09500693.2022.2070787
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2070787 [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu, F., & Stapleton, P.
    (2014) Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System, , –. 10.1016/j.system.2014.05.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  44. Llinares, A., & McCabe, A.
    (2023) Systemic functional linguistics: The perfect match for content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, (), –. 10.1080/13670050.2019.1635985
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1635985 [Google Scholar]
  45. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
    (2012) The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Llinares, A., & Nashaat-Sobhy, N.
    (2023) CLIL students’ academic language performance on a non-curricular topic: A comparison between high-exposure and low-exposure groups. English Teaching & Learning, , –. 10.1007/s42321‑023‑00151‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-023-00151-y [Google Scholar]
  47. Llinares, A., & Nikula, T.
    (2023) CLIL students’ production of cognitive discourse functions: Comparing Finnish and Spanish contexts. Language and Education. Advance online publication. 10.1080/09500782.2023.2211049
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2023.2211049 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lorenzo, F., & Rodríguez, L.
    (2014) Onset and expansion of L2 cognitive academic language proficiency in bilingual settings: CALP in CLIL. System, , –. 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.016 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lorenzo, F., & Trujillo, F.
    (2017) Languages of schooling in European policymaking: Present state and future outcomes. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/eujal‑2017‑0007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0007 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lorenzo, F.
    (2017) Historical literacy in bilingual settings: Cognitive academic language in CLIL history narratives. Linguistics and Education, , –. 10.1016/j.linged.2016.11.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  51. Manterola, I., Almgren, M., & Idiazabal, I.
    (2012) Basque L2 development in immersion school settings. International Journal of Bilingualism, (), –. 10.1177/1367006912438996
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006912438996 [Google Scholar]
  52. Martín-Gámez, C., & Erduran, S.
    (2018) Understanding argumentation about socio-scientific issues on energy: A quantitative study with primary pre-service teachers in Spain. Research in Science & Technological Education, (), –. 10.1080/02635143.2018.1427568
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1427568 [Google Scholar]
  53. Meneses, A., Montenegro, M., Acevedo, D., Figueroa, J., & Hugo, E.
    (2023) Cross-disciplinary language changes in 4th graders as a predictor of the quality of written scientific explanation. Journal of Writing Research. Advance online publication: https://www.jowr.org/index.php/jowr/article/view/1026. 10.17239/jowr‑2023.15.01.05
     https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2023.15.01.05 [Google Scholar]
  54. Morton, T.
    (2020) Cognitive discourse functions: A bridge between content, literacy and language for teaching and assessment in CLIL. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, (), –. 10.5565/rev/clil.33
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.33 [Google Scholar]
  55. Nashaat-Sobhy, N.
    (2018) Operationalizing “defining” from a cognitive discourse perspective for learners’ use. InS. M. Anwaruddin (Ed.), Knowledge mobilization in TESOL: Connecting research and practice (pp.–). 10.1163/9789004392472_007
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004392472_007 [Google Scholar]
  56. Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F.
    (2016) More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and bilingual education. InT. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.–). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145‑004
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-004 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pavón, V., & Pérez, A.
    (2017) Enhancing disciplinary literacies: Languages of schooling and whole-school language projects in Spain. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/eujal‑2017‑0023
     https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0023 [Google Scholar]
  58. Polias, J.
    (2016) Apprenticing students into science: Doing, talking & writing scientifically. Lexis Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Qin, J., & Karabacak, E.
    (2010) The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, (), –. 10.1016/j.system.2010.06.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.012 [Google Scholar]
  60. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.
    (2001) Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, (), –. 10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_04
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_04 [Google Scholar]
  61. Roca de Larios, J., Coyle, Y., & Garcia, V.
    (2023) The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in a CLIL science class. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, (), –. 10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.4.4
     https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.4.4 [Google Scholar]
  62. Rolstad, K.
    (2015) Second language instructional competence. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, (), –. 10.1080/13670050.2015.1057101
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1057101 [Google Scholar]
  63. Sagasta, M. P.
    (2003) Acquiring writing skills in a third language: The positive effects of bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, (), –. 10.1177/13670069030070010301
     https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069030070010301 [Google Scholar]
  64. Sampson, V., & Clark, D.
    (2008) Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, (), –. 10.1002/sce.20276
     https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276 [Google Scholar]
  65. Sandoval, W. A.
    (2003) Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, (), –. 10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  66. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A.
    (2005) The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and instruction, (), –. 10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2007) What can argumentation tell us about epistemology?InS. Erduran, & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in Science Education (pp.–). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6670‑2_4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_4 [Google Scholar]
  68. Santiago Schwarz, V., & Hamman-Ortiz, L.
    (2020) Systemic functional linguistics, teacher education, and writing outcomes for U.S. elementary English learners: A review of the literature. Journal of Second Language Writing, , 100727. 10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100727
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100727 [Google Scholar]
  69. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M.
    (2003) Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentation activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, (), –. 10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3 [Google Scholar]
  70. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C.
    (2008) Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, (), –. 10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101
     https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101 [Google Scholar]
  71. (2012) What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter?Topics in Language Disorders, (), –. 10.1097/TLD.0b013e318244557a
     https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e318244557a [Google Scholar]
  72. Simon, S.
    (2008) Using Toulmin’s Argument Pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, (), –. 10.1080/17437270802417176
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802417176 [Google Scholar]
  73. Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J.
    (2003) Assessment of evidence in university students’ scientific writing. Science & Education, , –. 10.1023/A:1024450509847
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024450509847 [Google Scholar]
  74. Tang, K. S.
    (2019) The role of language in scaffolding content & language integration in CLIL science classrooms. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, (), –. 10.1075/jicb.00007.tan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.00007.tan [Google Scholar]
  75. Toulmin, S.
    (1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Whittaker, R., & McCabe, A.
    (2023) Expressing evaluation across disciplines in primary and secondary CLIL writing: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, (), –. 10.1080/13670050.2020.1798869
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1798869 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.23014.gar
Loading
The effects of instruction on students’ argumentative scientific writing in a Basque medium of instruction setting
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.23014.gar
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.23014.gar
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.23014.gar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: cognitive discourse functions ; funtzio kognitibo diskurtsiboak ; Secondary Education ; Euskara ; scientific writing ; Bigarren Hezkuntza ; Basque ; argumentazioa ; argumentation ; idazketa akademikoa

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error