Qualitative insights and a first evaluation tool for teaching with cognitive discourse function“comparing” in the CLIL science classroom

  1. Gerns, Pilar 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Navarra
    info

    Universidad de Navarra

    Pamplona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02rxc7m23

Revista:
Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

ISSN: 1697-7467

Año de publicación: 2023

Número: 40

Páginas: 161-179

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.30827/PORTALIN.VI40.26619 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

Resumen

En aicle se está empezando a prestar atención al marco de las funciones cognitivas del discurso (fcd) (Dalton-Puffer, 2013), una taxonomía compuesta por siete operaciones académicas (como “explicar” o “definir”), que resulta útil para concretar la integración de contenidos y lenguas. Sin embargo, poco se sabe sobre la naturaleza específica de estas funciones, cómo se pueden enseñar y evaluar y su impacto en el aprendizaje de contenidos. Este artículo se centra en una fcd (“comparar”, un subtipo de “clasificar”) en el aula aicle de ciencias. En primer lugar, se ofrece un análisis de esta fcd basado en investigaciones previas, que se ilustra con ejemplos cualitativos de un estudio en el que un grupo de alumnos de ciencias de Educación Secundaria recibió una enseñanza explícitamente basada en esta fcd. En segundo lugar, a partir de esta interpretación de la fcd “comparar”, se ofrece una herramienta para evaluar cómo los alumnos presentaron sus contenidos de clase desde el enfoque de las fcd. En la discusión se compara este análisis con investigaciones previas y se señalan las ventajas de una enseñanza explícita con fcd para que los estudiantes presenten los contenidos de clase de manera más completa, precisa y explícita.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
  • Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2019). With united forces: How design-based research can link theory and practice in the transdisciplinary sphere of CLIL. clil. Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(2), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.19
  • Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2022). clil with a capital I: Using cognitive discourse functions to integrate content and language learning in clil history education. [PhD thesis]. University Vienna.
  • Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. S. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Open University Press.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Longman.
  • Breeze, R., & Dafouz, E. (2017). Constructing complex cognitive discourse functions in higher education: An exploratory study of exam answers in Spanishand English-medium instruction settings. System, 70, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.024
  • Breeze, R., & Gerns, P. (2019). Building literacies in secondary school history: The specific contribution of academic writing support. E-JournALL, EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 6(1), 21-36. https://doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.10.149
  • Carpi, A., & Egger, A. E. (2011). Comparison in scientific research. In A. Carpi & A. E. Egger, Process of Science (pp. 129-142). Vision learning.
  • Carpi, A., & Egger, A. E. (2011). Comparison in Scientific Research. Vision Learning, 1(5).
  • Cheong, L. K. (1978). Syntax of scientific English. Singapore University Press.
  • Clark, S. K., Judd, E., Smith, L. K., & Ahlstrom, E. (2020). Examining the effects of integrated science and literacy instruction to teach second graders to write compare and contrast informational text. Early Childhood Education Journal, 107(3), 567-579.
  • Coetzee-Lachmann, D. (2019). Assessment of subject-specific task performance of bilingual geography learners. [PhD thesis]. University Osnabrück.
  • Connolly, T. (2019). Die Förderung vertiefter Lernprozesse durch Sachfachliteralität. [PhD thesis]. Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz.
  • Cummins, J. (2008). bics and caLP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 487–499). Springer.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Academic language functions in a CLIL environment. In D. Marsh & D. Wolff (Ed.), Diverse contexts – converging goals (pp. 201–210). Peter Lang.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 99. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C., Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Brückl, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L., & Lechner, L. (2018). Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL lessons. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0028.
  • Darian, S. (2003). Understanding the Language of Science. University of Texas Press.
  • DeBoer, M., & Leontjev, D. (2020). Assessment and learning in content and language integrated learning (clil) classrooms. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54128-6
  • Del Pozo, E., & Llinares, A. (2021). Assessing students’ learning of history content in Spanish CLIL programmes: A content and language integrated perspective. In C. Hemmi & D. L. Banegas (Eds.), International Perspectives on clil (pp. 43–61). Springer.
  • Dixon, R.M. (2005). Comparative constructions in English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 41, 5-27.
  • Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2021). An analysis of the use of cognitive discourse functions in English-medium history teaching at university. English for Specific Purposes, 62, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.12.002.
  • Evnitskaya, N., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions in CLIL classrooms: eliciting and analyzing students’ oral categorizations in science and history. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13 670050.2020.1804824
  • Flannery, M. C. (2010). Biology today: Compare, compare. The American Biology Teacher, 72(6), 378-381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/abt.2010.72.6.13
  • Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.1.45
  • Goldstone, R. L., Day, S., & Son, J.Y. (2010). Comparison. Springer.
  • Gray, S., & Keech, C. (1980). Writing from given information. University of California.
  • Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
  • Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I. (2004). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.
  • Hammann, L.A, & Stevens, R. J. (2003). Instructional approaches to improving students’ writing of compare-contrast essays. Journal of Literacy Research, 35(2), 731-756. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3502_3
  • Hasenberger, T. (n.d.). English for the natural sciences: Developing and implementing a curriculum for a new subject at upper-secondary schools [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Vienna.
  • Huddleston, R. (2017). Comparative constructions. In R. Huddleston, & G. K. Pullum (Ed.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (pp. 1097–1170). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Language and educational processes. Ablex Pub. Corp.
  • Lin, A.M.Y, & Wu, A.Y. (2022). Thematic patterns, cognitive discourse functions, and genres. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 10(2), 230-264. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17017.dal
  • Llinares, A., & Nashaat-Sobhy, N. (2021). Defining science in primary school CLIL contexts. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 3(2), 337–362. https://doi.org/10.1075/LTYL.20010.LLI
  • Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in clil. cuP.
  • Llinares, A. (2015). Integration in CLIL: a proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language Culture and Curriculum. 28(1), 58-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000925
  • LongAd-CLIL project (2019-2021). A longitudinal corpus-based analysis of advancedness in CLIL: subject literacies, classroom practices and participant perspectives from primary through secondary education. https://uam-clil.org/longad-clil/
  • Lose, J. (2007). The language of scientific discourse. In D. Caspari, W. Halle, A. Wegner, & W. Zydatiß (Eds.), Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule, (pp. 97-107). Peter Lang.
  • Lorenzo, F. (2017). Historical literacy in bilingual settings: Cognitive academic language in CLIL history narratives. Linguistics and Education, 37, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.11.002
  • MacArthur, C. A., & Philippakos, Z. (2010). Instruction in a strategy for compare–contrast writing. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600404
  • Martínez P. (2018) The comparative method in biology and the essentialist trap. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00130
  • Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Experts in assessment. Corwin Press.
  • Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 24(1), 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005
  • Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924
  • Morton, T. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural, 3(1), 7-17. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.33
  • Nashaat-Sobhy, N. (2020). Operationalizing “defining” from a cognitive discourse perspective for learners’ use. In S. M. Anwaruddin (Eds.), Knowledge Mobilization in tesol (pp. 94–112). Brill Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004392472_007
  • Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U.(2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters.
  • Oattes, H., Oostdam, R., de Graaff, R., & Wilschut, A. (2018). The challenge of balancing content and language. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.022
  • Polias, J. (2015). Apprenticing students into science: Doing, talking & writing scientifically. Lexis Education.
  • Raphael, T. E., & Kirschner, B. M. (1985). The effects of instruction in compare/contrast text structure on sixth-grade students’ reading comprehension and writing products. College of Education Michigan State University.
  • Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge, and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox Publishing.
  • Silver, H. F. (2007). Compare & contrast: Teaching comparative thinking to strengthen student learning. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
  • Smith, S. (2019). Academic writing genres: Essays, reports & other genres. Evident Press.
  • Villabona, N., & Cenoz, J. (2021). The integration of content and language in CLIL: a challenge for content-driven and language-driven teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 35(1), 36 50.
  • Vollmer, J. H. (2010). Items for a description of linguistic competence in the language of schooling necessary for learning/teaching sciences. Language Policy Division. Directorate of Education and Languages.
  • 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, 5(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.179886
  • Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Reading and thinking in English. Oxford University Press.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet