Cognitive Discourse FunctionsA Bridge between Content, Literacy and Language for Teaching and Assessment in CLIL

  1. Morton, Tom 1
  1. 1 Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01cby8j38

Revista:
CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education

ISSN: 2604-5613,  2604-5893

Año de publicación: 2020

Volumen: 3

Número: 1

Páginas: 7-17

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5565/REV/CLIL.33 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

As Bilingual Education programmes which adopt a CLIL approach grow, there is an ever-increasing need for conceptual and practical frameworks to help teachers integrate content, literacy and language in teaching and assessment. This article proposes that the construct ‘Cognitive Discourse Function’ or CDF (Dalton-Puffer, 2013) has clear potential for achieving a deeper integration of content, literacy and language than what is common in current practice. Cognitive discourse functions refer to how cognitive processes involved in learning academic content (such as describing, defining, explaining or evaluating) are realised in recurring linguistic patterns in the classroom. As the article argues, these linguistic patterns create a ‘bridge’ to link content, literacy and language and thus avoid the artificial separation of content and language that still pervades much CLIL practice. Reporting on a research study which examined 6th year primary CLIL students’ production of one CDF (definitions) in a Spanish bilingual programme, the article suggests guidelines for how CDFs can inform CLIL practice at the levels of curriculum development, materials design, classroom teaching and assessment.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R. (eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
  • Anghel, B., Cabrales, A., Carro, J. M., & Centre for Economic Policy Research (Great Britain). (2012). Evaluating a Bilingual Education Program in Spain: The Impact beyond Foreign Language Learning. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.
  • https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12305
  • Ball, P., K. Kelly and J. Clegg. (2015). Putting CLIL into Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Black, P., & William, D. (2009). Developing the Theory of Formative Assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5-31. DOI:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
  • Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M., Furst, E. J., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman.
  • Cammarata, L., & Cavanagh, M. (2018). In search of immersion teacher educators’ knowledge base: Exploring their readiness to foster an integrated approach to teaching. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6(2), 189-217.
  • https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18009.cam
  • Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content-and-Language-Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2009.021
  • 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), 1-38.
  • https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011
  • Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2017). Analysing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–14.
  • https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142
  • Fletcher-Wood, H. (2018). Responsive Teaching. London: Routledge,
  • Gottlieb, M. (2016). Assessing English Language Learners: Bridges to Educational Equity: Connecting Academic Language Proficiency to Student Achievement (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  • Jäppinen, A-K. (2005) ‘Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign language in Finland’. Language and Education, 19/2. 147-168.
  • https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780508668671
  • Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mahoney, K. (2017). The Assessment of Emergent Bilinguals: Supporting English Language Learners. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • 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. (2010). Using a genre-based approach to integrating content and language in CLIL: the example of secondary history. In Dalton-Puffer, C., T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds), Language Use in Content-and-Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.05mor
  • Nashaat, N. & Llinares, A. (2017). “An ecosystem is...”: an analysis of CLIL students’ definitions in English and Spanish. Paper presented at XXXV AESLA International Conference, University of Jaén, 4-6 May.
  • Nashaat, N. & Llinares, A. (forthcoming). CLIL students’ definitions of historical terms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
  • Otto, A., & Estrada, J.L. (2019). Towards an understanding of CLIL in a European Context: Main assessment tools and the role of language in content subjects. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 31-42.
  • https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.11
  • Surmont, J., Struys, E., Van Den Noort, M., & Van De Craen, P. (2016). The effects of CLIL on mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 319.
  • https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.2.7
  • Vollmer, H. J. (2006). Language Across the Curriculum. Paper presented at the Intergovernmental ConferenceLanguages of Schooling: towards a Framework for Europe, Strasbourg 16-18 October 2006. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/09000016805c7464
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet