Keywords
cognitive discourse functions
writing
CLIL
children
How to Cite
Number of views: 516
Number of downloads: 824
Abstract
The present study analyzed how a group of young Spanish-speaking English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) science class responded to an instructional unit integrating attention to functional language and an inquiry-oriented approach to science. Working in cooperation with the researchers, a year 4 primary school teacher implemented a teaching sequence on levers with 48 9-10-year-olds over three weeks. The sequence, which was intended to raise the children’s awareness of the demands involved in understanding (content goals) and expressing as written reports (rhetorical goals) how levers work, scaffolded their activity from item-based writing to the production of full texts. On completing the unit, each child independently wrote a report on levers, all of which were analyzed from the perspective of cognitive discourse functions and ideational meaning. The results of these analyses are discussed in terms of their significance for CLIL writing with young learners.
References
Accurso, K., Gebhard, M., & Selden, C. (2016). Supporting L2 elementary science writing with SFL in an age of school reform. In L. C. de Oliveira & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing in elementary classrooms: Instructional issues, con-tent-area writing and teacher education (pp. 126-150). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137530981_8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137530981_8
Artieda, G., Roquet, H., & Nicolas Conesa, F. (2017). The impact of age and exposure on EFL achievement in two learning contexts: Formal instruc-tion and formal instruction + content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(4), 1-19. https://doi.org/10/1080/13670050.2017.1373059 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1373059
Brisk, M. E., Hodgson-Drysdale, T., & O’Connor, C. (2011). A study of a collabo-rative instructional project informed by systemic functional linguistic theory: Report writing in elementary grades. Journal of Education, 191(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741119100102 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741119100102
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41(3), 587-597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. Continuum.
Coetzee-Lachmann, D. (2007). Assessment of subject-specific task performance of bilingual geography learners: Analyzing aspects of subject-specific written discourse (Doctoral dissertation, Osnabrück University). http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/dissts/Osnabrueck/Coetzee-Lachmann2009.pdf
Coyle, Y., & Cánovas Guirao, J. (2019). Learning to write in a second language. The role of guided interaction in promoting children’s interaction from model texts. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.22 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.22
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024549 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024549
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2004). Academic language functions in content and language integrated classrooms: Defining and hypothesizing. Vienna English Work-ing Papers, 13, 23-48.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptual-izing content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Euro-pean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 1-38. 216-253. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011
Dawes, L., Dore, B., Loxley, P., & Nicholls, L. (2010). A talk focus for promoting enjoy-ment and developing understanding in science. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(2), 99-110. http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/id/eprint/3444
de Oliveira, L. C., & Lan, S. W. (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: A genre-based approach to teaching English language learn-ers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.001
de Oliveira, L. C., Jones, L., & Smith, L. C. (2020). Interactional scaffolding in a “first-grade” classroom through the teaching-learning cycle. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1798867 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1798867
Evnitskaya, N., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions in CLIL classrooms: Eliciting and analyzing students’ oral categorizations in sci-ence and history. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilin-gualism https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1804824 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1804824
Fang, Z., & Wang, Z. (2011). Beyond rubrics: Using functional language analysis to evaluate student writing. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34, 147-165. http://doi.org/school.discoveryeducation.com/schrockguide/assess.html
Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2017). Analyzing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empir-ical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bi-lingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142
Forey, G. (2020). A whole school approach to SFL metalanguage and the explicit teaching of language for curriculum learning. Journal of English for Aca-demic Purposes, 44, 100822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100822 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100822
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(93)90026-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(93)90026-7
Hermansson, C., B. Jonsson, M. Levlin, A. Lindhé, B. Lundgren, & Shaswar, N. A. (2019). The (non)effect of joint construction in a genre-based approach to teaching writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(4), 483-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1563038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1563038
Hodgson-Drysdale, T. (2014). Concepts and language: Developing knowledge in science. Linguistics and Education, 27, 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.07.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.07.004
Hu, J., & Gao, X. (2021). Understanding subject teachers’ language-related pedagogi-cal practices in content and language integrated learning classrooms. Lan-guage Awareness, 30(1), 42-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1768265 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1768265
Humphrey, S., & MacNaught, L. (2015). Functional language instruction and the writing growth of English language learners in the middle years. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 792-816. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.247 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.247
Klein, P., Haug, K., & Arcon, N. (2017). The effects of rhetorical and content subgoals on writing and learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(2), 291-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1143795 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1143795
Lahuerta, A. (2020). Analysis of accuracy in the writing of EFL students enrolled on CLIL and non-CLIL programmes: The impact of grade and gender. The Language Learning Journal, 48(2), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1303745 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1303745
López-Ramón, M. J. (2015). Exploring the dialogic classroom interaction and development of content knowledge in a CLIL and L1 primary science classroom (Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Murcia).
Madrid, D., & Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). Innovations and challenges in attend-ing to diversity through CLIL. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 241-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1492237 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1492237
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. Equinox.
McCabe, A., & Whittaker, R. (2016). Genre and appraisal in CLIL history texts: Developing the voice of the historian. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 105-124). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.07mcc DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.07mcc
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies ap-proach to content and language integrated learning: Mapping learner pro-gressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924
Moore, J. (2019). Choice and constraint: Using SLF genre theory to teach primary-grade students to write arguments about literature. Journal of Writing Re-search, 10(3), 429-464. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.10.03.02 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.10.03.02
More, C. M., Spies, T. G., Morgan, J. J., & Baker, J. N. (2016). Incorporating Eng-lish language learner instruction within special education teacher prepa-ration. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(4), 229-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451215589183 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451215589183
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, 3(1), 7-27. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.33 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.33
Nashaat-Sobhy, N., & Llinares, A. (2020). CLIL students’ definitions of historical terms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1798868 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1798868
Parkin, B. M. (2014). Scaffolding science: A pedagogy for marginalized stu-dents (Doctoral dissertation, University of Adelaide, Australia). https://hekyll.ser-vices.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/91443/3/02whole.pdf
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016). Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a Euro-pean study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 202-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1138104 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1138104
Polias, J. (2010). Pedagogical resonance: Improving teaching and learning. Spe-cial Issue of NALDIC Quarterly, 42-49.
Polias, J. (2016). Apprenticing students into science: Doing, talking & writing scientifically. Lexis Education.
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge, and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox.
Santiago Schwarz, V., & Hamman-Ortiz, L. (2020). Systemic functional linguis-tics, teacher education, and writing outcomes for U.S. elementary Eng-lish learners: A review of the literature. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100727 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100727
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610317 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610317
Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in con-structing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308317815 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308317815
Valverde Caravaca, R. (2019). Effective questioning in CLIL classrooms: Empowering thinking. ELT Journal, 73(4), 367-376. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz030
Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean: Scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161-195). Continuum.
Vollmer, H. J. (2008). Constructing tasks for content and language integrated learning and assessment. In J. Eckerth & S. Siekmann (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching: Theoretical, methodological, and ped-agogical perspectives (pp. 227-290). Peter Lang.
Whittaker, R., & McCabe, A. (2020). Writing on history in a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) context: Development of grammatical metaphor as evidence of language learning. In R. Manchón, (Ed.) Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 309-332). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.13whi DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.13whi
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.