Building literacies in secondary school history: The specific contribution of academic writing support

  1. Breeze, Ruth 1
  2. Gerns Jiménez-Villarejo, Pilar 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Navarra
    info

    Universidad de Navarra

    Pamplona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02rxc7m23

Revista:
EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages

ISSN: 2376-905X

Año de publicación: 2019

Volumen: 6

Número: 1

Páginas: 21-36

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.21283/2376905X.10.149 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages

Resumen

This paper considers the specific role and effect of academic writing support in a secondary school Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) context. After discussing the potential place for academic writing support in the ongoing process of fostering disciplinary literacy, we report on an experimental study in which 45 Spanish secondary school students received a short academic writing module as part of their history course. The descriptions/explanations written in their post-tests were generally found to be more complete, with more explicit discourse markers and with better textual organization than the pre-tests. We discuss the implications of this for students’ progress towards disciplinary literacy.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ball, Philip, Kelly, Keith, & Clegg, John (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
  • Biggs, John, & Tang, Catherine (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Maidenhead, United Kingdom: Open University.
  • Breeze, Ruth (2012). Rethinking academic writing pedagogy for the European university. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
  • Breeze, Ruth, & Dafouz, Emma (2017). Negotiating complex cognitive discourse functions in L1 and L2: Exam responses in a parallel L1-EMI university course. System, 70, 81-91.
  • Cenoz, Jasone, Genesee, Fred, & Gorter, Durk (2013). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243-262.
  • Coetzee-Lachmann, Debbie (2009). Assessment of subject-specific task performance of bilingual geography learners (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Osnabrück, Germany. Retrieved from: https://repositorium.ub.uni-osnabrueck.de/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:gbv:700-2009030617/2/E-Diss864_thesis.pdf
  • Coyle, Do (2005). Developing CLIL: Towards a theory of practice. APAC Monograph 6. Barcelona, Spain: APAC.
  • Cummins, James (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121-129.
  • Dalton-Puffer, Christiane (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216-253.
  • Davies, Florence (1997). Marked theme as a heuristic for analysing text-type, text and genre. In Jordi Piqué & David Vieira, (Eds.), Applied languages. Theory and practice in ESP (pp. 45-71). Valencia, Spain: Universitat de València.
  • Flowerdew, John (2001). Genre in the classroom: A linguistic approach. In Ann Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: multiple perspectives (pp. 91-103). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
  • Hyland, Ken (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
  • Jordan, Robert R. (2010). English for academic purposes. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  • Krathwohl, David (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
  • Lasagabaster, David, & Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda (2010). Ways forward in CLIL: Provision issues and future planning. In David Lasagabaster & Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 278–295). Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Llinares, Ana, Morton, Tom, & Whittaker, Rachel (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lorenzo, Francisco. (2017). Historical literacy in bilingual settings: Cognitive academic language in CLIL history narratives. Linguistics and Education, 37, 32-41.
  • Lorenzo, Francisco, & Dalton-Puffer, Christiane (2016). Historical literacy in CLIL: Telling the past in a second language. In Tarja Nikula, Emma Dafouz, Pat Moore, & Ute Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 55-72). Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
  • Marsh, David, Pérez Cañado, María Luisa & Ráez Padilla, Juan (Eds.). (2015). CLIL in action: Voices from the classroom. Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars.
  • Martin, James, & Rose, David (2005). Designing literacy pedagogy: Scaffolding asymmetries. In Jonathan Webster, Christian Matthiessen, & Ruqaiya Hasan (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language (pp. 251-280). London, United Kingdom: Continuum.
  • Menken, Kate (2013). Emergent bilingual students in secondary school: Along the academic and literacy continuum. Language Teaching, 46(4), 438-476.
  • Meyer, Oliver (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to teaching for learning. Graz, Austria: ECML.
  • Nashaat Soby, Nashwa (2019). Operationalising “defining” from a cognitive discourse perspective for learners’ use. In Sardar Anwaruddin (Ed.), Knowledge mobilization in TESOL: Teachers’ experiences of connecting research and practice (pp. 95-112). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
  • Pérez Cañado, María Luisa (2018a). CLIL and pedagogical innovation: Fact or fiction? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 369-390.
  • Pérez Cañado, María Luisa (2018b). CLIL and educational level: A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on language outcomes. Porta Linguarum, 29, 51-70.
  • Pérez Cañado, María Luisa (2018c). The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning: Updated empirical evidence from monolingual contexts. Learning and instruction, 57, 18-33.
  • Polias, John (2015). Apprenticing students into science: Doing, talking, writing and drawing scientifically. Stockholm, Sweden: Hallgren and Fallgren.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda, & Zenotz, Victoria (2014). Strategic instruction in primary education: A pathway to successful learning in content-based courses. In Ruth Breeze, Carmen Llamas Saíz, Concepción Martínez Pasamar, & Cristina Tabernero (Eds.), Integration of theory and practice in CLIL (pp. 37-54). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
  • Rumlich, Dominik (2016). Evaluating bilingual education in Germany. CLIL students’ general English proficiency, EFL self-concept and interest. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
  • Shanahan, Timothy (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7-18.
  • Whittaker, Rachel, Llinares, Ana, & McCabe, Anne (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 343-362.
  • Zydatiß, Wolfgang (2005). Diskursfunktionen in einem analytisch curricularen Zugriff auf Textvarietäten und Aufgaben des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts [Discourse functions in an analytical curricular approach to text varieties and exercises in bilingual content teaching.] Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 34, 156-173.