Building Scientific Knowledge in English: Integrating Content, Cognition and Communication in Secondary School CLIL Biology

Pilar Gerns

doi:10.17323/jle.2023.17569

Pilar Gerns University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain; UNIR, Rioja, Spain https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1754-5395

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.17569

Keywords: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Cognitive Discourse Function (CDF), secondary school science education, knowledge construction

Abstract

Background: The focus of this paper is on Dalton-Puffer’s construct of the Cognitive Discourse Function (cdf) (2013), which offers clil teachers a practical framework through which they can more easily understand the complex idea of integrating the content, cognition, and language required for their subject. These functions have mainly been addressed from classroom observations or task prompts, and little is known about their teachability and effectiveness on students’ content knowledge.

Purpose: This paper explores whether the cdf of ‘comparing’ (a subcategory of ‘classify’) can be taught to Spanish seventh-grade clil biology students (N = 37) and examines the effect of teaching it explicitly on their written performance.

Method: An operational framework was developed to define this cdf and an exploratory study was performed in which students were asked to hand in written comparisons. Quantitative and qualitative pre-and post-tests were applied.

Results: Significant results were obtained for the experimental groups, which improved in both content and language learning, scoring higher on inclusion of content points, justification of their scientific claims, concept formation and use of lexico-grammatical forms.

Conclusion: These findings add to our understanding of the importance of integrating cognition and language in teaching and learning natural sciences, within which CDFs can be a useful starting point.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Pilar Gerns, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain; UNIR, Rioja, Spain

Pilar Gerns is a German and Spanish postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for Culture and Society (ICS), an interdisciplinary research centre from the University of Navarra (Spain). She is currently conducting a research stay at the University of Porto (Faculty of Arts and Humanities) investigating the concept of Cognitive Discourse Functions (CDFs) in classroom interactions (with a STSM COST Action CA21114 grant).

Her research area focuses on CLIL, academic writing and digital literacies. She has participated in several conferences, Erasmus + projects, eTwinning projects, and international stays (in Finland, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Portugal) and has given lectures at different universities (European University of Madrid, Complutense University, and the University of Hamburg).

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Badertscher, H., & Bieri, T. (2009). Wissenserwerb im content and language integrated learning [Knowledge acquisition in content and language integrated learning]. Haupt.

Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2022). CLIL with a capital I [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. University of Vienna.

Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. S. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. 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. System, 70, 81-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.024

Breeze, R., & Gerns Jiménez-Villarejo, P. (2019). Building literacies in secondary school history: The specific contribution of academic writing support. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 6(1), 21-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.10.149

Breeze, R., Llamas Saíz, C., Martínez Pasamar, C., & Tabernero Sala, C. (2014).Integration of Theory and Practice in CLIL. Rodopi/Brill.

Carpi, A., & Egger, A. E. (2011).Comparison in scientific research. In A. Carpi & A. E. Egger (Eds.), Process of science (pp. 129-142). Visionlearning.

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 texts. Early Childhood Education Journal, 107(3), 567-579. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01106-9

Coetzee-Lachmann, D. (2009). Assessment of subject-specific task performance of bilingual geography learners [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Osnabrück.

Connolly, T. (2019). Die Förderung vertiefter Lernprozesse durch Sachfachliteralität [The promotion of in-depth learning processes through subject literacy] [Doctoral dissertation]. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_36

Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press.

Coyle, D., Meyer, O., & Staschen-Dielmann, S. (2023). A deeper learning companion for CLIL: Putting pluriliteracies into practice. Cambridge University Press.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2004). Academic language functions in content and language integrated classrooms. Vienna English Working Papers, 13 (1), 23-48.

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 conceptualizing content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216-253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011

Dalton-Puffer, C., & Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2019). Cognitive discourse functions meet historical competences: Towards an integrated pedagogy in CLIL history education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7(1), 30-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17017.dal

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0028

Darian, S. (2003). Understanding the language of science. University of Texas Press.

DeBoer, M., & Leontjev, D. (Eds.). (2020). Assessment and learning in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54128-6

De la Paz, S., & Mc Cutchen, D. (2010). Learning to write. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 32-54). Routledge.

Del Pozo, E., & Llinares, A. (2021). Assessing students'learning of history content in Spanish CLIL Programmes. In International Perspectives on CLIL (pp. 43-61). Palgrave Macmillan Cham.

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ESP.2020.12.002

Evnitskaya, N., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions in CLIL classrooms.International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1804824

Evnitskaya, N., & Morton, T. (2011). Knowledge construction, meaning-making and interaction in CLIL science classroom communities of practice. Language Education, 25, 109-127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2010.547199

Flannery, M. C. (2010). Biology today: Compare, compare. The American Biology Teacher, 72(6), 378-381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2010.72.6.13

Gerns, P. (2021). Cognitive discourse functions in content and language integrated learning: An empirical study in secondary school science [Unpublished doctorl dissertation]. University of Navarra.

Gerns, P. (2023). Qualitative insights and a first evaluation tool for teaching with cognitive discourse function: comparing in the CLIL science classroom. Porta Linguarum An International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning, (40), 161-179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi40.26619

Goldstone, R. L., Day, S., & Son, J.Y. (2010).Comparison. Springer.

Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.

Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.

Hammann L.A, & Stevens R. J. (2003). Instructional approaches to improving students' writing of compare-contrast essay.

Journal of Literacy Research, 35(2), 731-756. DOI: 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.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. Ablex Pub. Corp.

Llinares, A. (2015).Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language Culture and.

Curriculum, 28(1), 58-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000925

Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2015). The role of different tasks in CLIL students' use of evaluative language. System, 54, 60-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.001

Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.

Llinares, A., & Nashaat-Sobhy, N. (2021). Defining science in primary school CLIL contexts. Language Teaching for Young.

Learners, 3(2), 337-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/LTYL.20010.LLI

Llinares, A., & Nikula, T. (2023). CLIL students' production of cognitive discourse functions: Comparing Finnish and Spanish contexts. Language and Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2023.2211049

Lorenzo, F. (2017). Historical literacy in bilingual settings. Linguistics and Education, 37, 32-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.11.002

Lose, J. (2007). The language of scientific discourse. In D. Caspari, W. Halle, A. Wegner, & W. Zydatiß (Ed.), Bilingualer unterricht macht schule [Bilingual education makes school] (pp. 97-107). Peter Lang.

MacArthur, C. A., & Philippakos, Z. (2010). Instruction in a strategy for compare-contrast writing. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 438-456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600404

Martinez, P. (2018). The comparative method in biology and the essentialist trap. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00130

Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Experts in assessment. Corwin Press.

Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924

Meyer, O., Coyle, D., & Schuck, K. (2018). Learnscaping: Creating next-gen learning environments for pluriliteracies growth. In J. Buendgens-Kosten & D. Elsner (Eds.), Multilingual computer assisted language learning (pp. 18-38). Multilingual Matters.

Mortimer, E.F., & Scott. P.H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press.

Morton, T. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural, 3(1), 7-17. DOI: 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004392472_007

Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Educational Linguistics (vol. 32). Springer.

Nikula, T. (2017). ‘What's the Moment Thingy?'. In J. Langman, & H. Hansen-Thomas (Ed.), Discourse Analytic Perspectives on STEM Education (pp. 11-29). Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55116-6_2

Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2009). Scientific literacy. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy. Cambridge University Press.

Oliveira, A. W., & Weinburgh, M. H. (2017). Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition. Springer.

Polias, J. (2015). Apprenticing students into science. 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. Research Series (vol. 161). Michigan State University.

Rasinger, S. M. (2008). Quantitative research in linguistics: An introduction. Continuum.

Roberts, D.A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Routledge.

Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge, and pedagogy in the Sydney school. Equinox Publishing.

Salvador-Garcia, C., & Chiva-Bartoll, O. (2022) The nature of integration in physical education through CLIL. Journal of Language, Identity & Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2022.2085107

Schalk, L., Saalbach, H., & Stern, E. (2016). Approaches to foster transfer of formal principles. PloS One, 11(2), e0148787. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148787

Schleppegrell, M.J., & Colombi, M.C. (2005). Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages. Routledge.

Silver, H. F. (2007).Compare & contrast: Teaching comparative thinking to strengthen student learning. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Smith, S. (2019). Academic writing genres. Evident Press.

Vanderbeke, M., & Wilden, E. (2017). Sachfachliche Diskursfähigkeit durch fremdsprachliche affordances in bilingualen Schülerlaborprojekten [Subject-related discourse skills through foreign language affordances in bilingual school laboratory projects]. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung, 2(1), 3-27.

Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean - scientifically speaking. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and Institutions (pp. 161-195). Continuum.

Villabona, N., & Cenoz, J. (2021). The integration of content and language in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 35, 36 - 50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2021.1910703

Vollmer, J. H. (2010). Items for a description of linguistic competence in the language of schooling. Language Policy Division.

Whittaker, R., & A. McCabe. (2023). Expressing evaluation across disciplines in primary and secondary CLIL writing. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(3), 345-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1798869

Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Reading and thinking in English. Oxford University Press.

Zwiers, J. (2014). Building academic language: Meeting common core standards across disciplines. Jossey Bass Teacher.