1887
Volume 3, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-2053
  • E-ISSN: 2589-207x
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) contexts, students are expected to express disciplinary knowledge in a second/foreign language. One construct that has proven useful for the identification and realization of language functions in disciplinary knowledge is Dalton-Puffer’s (2013) model of cognitive discourse functions (CDFs). Additionally, Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) has already been proven useful for distinguishing lexico-grammatical features that characterise different CDFs in CLIL students’ productions (e.g., Nashaat-Sobhy & Llinares, 2020Evnitskaya & Dalton-Puffer, 2020). In this article, we use SFL to analyse the oral and written realisations of the CDF Define by 6th grade students participating in a CLIL program in Madrid, Spain. A total of 83 students responded to the same prompt (on science) in writing (in the form of a blog) as well as orally (in the form of an interview). In the oral interviews the co-construction of definitions by the students with the interviewer (researcher) and another peer are explored using the notion of Legitimation Code Theory and the concept of semantic waves (Maton, 2013). The analysis of students’ definitions is also related to primary CLIL teachers’ evaluations using comparative judgement.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.20010.lli
2021-07-27
2021-09-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beacco, J. C.
    (2010) Items for a Description of Linguistic Competence in the Language of Schooling Necessary for Teaching/Learning History (End of Obligatory Education). Strasbourg: Language Policy Division, Council of Europe.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benelli, B., Belacchi, C., Gini, G., & Lucangeli, D.
    (2006) ‘To define means to say what you know about things’: The development of definitional skills as metalinguistic acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 33(1), 71. doi:  10.1017/S0305000905007312
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000905007312 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernstein, B. B.
    (1999) Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–73. doi:  10.1080/01425699995380
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01425699995380 [Google Scholar]
  4. Campillo, J. M., Sánchez, R., & Miralles, P.
    (2019) Primary teachers’ perceptions of CLIL implementation in Spain. English Language Teaching, 12(4), 149–156. doi:  10.5539/elt.v12n4p149
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n4p149 [Google Scholar]
  5. Council of Europe CM/Rec
    Council of Europe CM/Rec (2014) Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the importance of competences in the language(s) of schooling for equity and quality in education and for educational success. Retrieved on25 December, 2018fromhttps://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c6105
  6. Cummins, J.
    (1981) The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. InCalifornia State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cummins, J., Swain, M., Nakajima, K., Handscombe, J., Green, D., & Tran, C.
    (1984) Linguistic interdependence among Japanese and Vietnamese immigrant students. InC. Rivera (Ed.), Communicative competence approaches to language proficiency assessment: Research and application (pp.60–81). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2013) A construct of cognitive discourse functions in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253. doi:  10.1515/eujal‑2013‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dalton-Puffer, C., Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Brückl-Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L. M., & Lechner, L.
    (2018) Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL lessons: towards an empirical validation of the CDF construct. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6, 29–5. doi:  10.1515/eujal‑2017‑0028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0028 [Google Scholar]
  10. Escobar Urmeneta, C., & Evnitskaya, N.
    (2014) Do you know Actimel?’ The adaptive nature of dialogic teacher-led discussions in the CLIL science classroom: A case study. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 165–180. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2014.889507
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889507 [Google Scholar]
  11. Evnitskaya, N., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2020) Cognitive discourse functions in CLIL classrooms: Eliciting and analysing students’ oral categorizations in science and history. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2020.1804824
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1804824 [Google Scholar]
  12. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (2007) Language and education. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
    (2014) An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  14. He, Q. & Forey, G.
    (2018) Meaning-making in a secondary science classroom: A systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis. InK. S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education. Cham: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑319‑69197‑8_12
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_12 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hofmann, V., & Hopf, J.
    (2015) An analysis of cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL biology lessons (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of Vienna. Retrieved fromothes.univie.ac.at/37658/
  16. Hughes, S. P., & Madrid, D.
    (2020) The effects of CLIL on content knowledge in monolingual contexts. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 48–59. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2019.1671483
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1671483 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jones, I., & Wheadon, C.
    (2015) Peer assessment using comparative and absolute judgement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 47, 93–101. doi:  10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lave, J., & Wenger, E.
    (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lemke, J.
    (2003) Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions. Retrieved fromwww.jaylemke.com/science-education/
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lin, A. M.
    (2016) Language across the curriculum & CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Singapore: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑981‑10‑1802‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1802-2 [Google Scholar]
  21. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
    (2012) The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lo, Y. Y., Lin, A. M. Y., & Liu, Y.
    (2020) Exploring content and language co-construction in CLIL with semantic waves. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2020.1810203
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1810203 [Google Scholar]
  23. Madrid, D.
    (2011) Monolingual and bilingual students’ competence in social sciences. InD. Madrid & S. Hughes (Eds.), Studies in Bilingual Education (pp.195–222). Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0237‑6
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0237-6 [Google Scholar]
  24. Malakoff, M. E.
    (1988) The effect of language of instruction on reasoning in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9(1), 17–38. doi:  10.1017/S0142716400000436
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400000436 [Google Scholar]
  25. Marinellie, S. A.
    (2009) The content of children’s definitions: The oral-written distinction. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 25(1), 89–102. doi:  10.1177/0265659008098662
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659008098662 [Google Scholar]
  26. Martin, J. R., & Veel, R.
    (1998) Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Maton, K.
    (2013) Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 24, 8–22. doi:  10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2020) Semantic waves: Context, complexity and academic discourse. InJ. R. Martin, K. Maton & Y. J. Doran (Eds.), Accessing academic discourse: Systemic functional linguistics and legitimation code theory (pp.59–85). London: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9780429280726‑3
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429280726-3 [Google Scholar]
  29. Maton, K., & Doran, Y. J.
    (2017) Semantic density: A translation device for revealing complexity of knowledge practices in discourse, part 1 – wording. Onomázein: Revista de Lingüística, Filología y Traducción de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 1, 46–76. doi:  10.7764/onomazein.sfl.03
    https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.sfl.03 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P.
    (2003) Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. London: McGraw-Hill Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Nashaat-Sobhy, N., & Llinares, A.
    (2020) CLIL students’ definitions of historical terms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2020.1798868
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1798868 [Google Scholar]
  32. Nikula, T.
    (2017) What’s the moment thingy?’– On the emergence of subject-specific knowledge in CLIL classroom interaction. InJ. Langman & H. Hansen-Thomas (Eds.), Discourse analytic perspectives on STEM education. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑55116‑6_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55116-6_2 [Google Scholar]
  33. O’Donnell, M.
    (2008) Demonstration of the UAM CorpusTool for text and image annotation. InProceedings of the ACL-08: HLT Demo Session Companion Volume, 13–16. Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:  10.3115/1564144.1564148
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1564144.1564148 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pollitt, A.
    (2012) The method of adaptive comparative judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice, 19, 281–300. doi:  10.1080/0969594X.2012.665354
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.665354 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pladevall-Ballester, E., & Vallbona, A.
    (2016) CLIL in minimal input contexts: A longitudinal study of primary school learners’ receptive skills. System, 58, 37–48. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2016.02.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.009 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sato, M., & Loewen, S.
    (2019) Do teachers care about research? The research–pedagogy dialogue. ELT Journal, 73(1), 1–10. doi:  10.1093/elt/ccy048
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy048 [Google Scholar]
  37. Schleppegrell, M. J.
    (2004) The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. London: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9781410610317
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610317 [Google Scholar]
  38. Snow, C., Cancino, H., Temple, D., & Schley, S.
    (1990) Giving formal definitions: A linguistic or metalinguistic skill. InE. Bialystock (Ed.), Language processing and language awareness by bilingual children (pp.90–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511620652.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620652.007 [Google Scholar]
  39. Trimble, L.
    (1985) English for science and technology: A discourse approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Vollmer, J. H.
    (2010) Items for a description of linguistic competence in the language of schooling necessary for learning/teaching sciences (at the end of compulsory education): An approach with reference points. Language and school subjects: linguistic dimensions of knowledge building in school curricula (2). Language Policy Division. Directorate of Education and Languages, DGIV. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Whittaker, R., & McCabe, A.
    (2020) Expressing evaluation across disciplines in primary and secondary CLIL writing: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2020.1798869
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1798869 [Google Scholar]
  42. Xu, Y. & Brown, G. T. L.
    (2016) Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149–162. doi:  10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.20010.lli
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.20010.lli
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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