Cover not available
Article published In:
(In)equity Issues in CLIL
Edited by Ana Llinares and Russell Cross
[AILA Review 35:2] 2022
► pp. 227–249

(In)equity in CLIL programs?

Classroom interaction and the development of higher order thinking skills across bilingual strands

ORCID logo | Universitat Internacional de Catalunya
| Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

This study explores issues of potential (in)equity in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programs in bilingual secondary schools in the Madrid region (Spain). Based on their general L2 proficiency, students in grades 7 to 10 are streamed into either High Exposure (HE) or Low Exposure (LE) strands, with different degrees of exposure to CLIL. Although this system ensures that all students in a bilingual secondary school receive CLIL to a certain degree, recent voices have signaled the potential risk of fostering inequality among students by streaming within the program (Fernández-Agüero & Hidalgo-McCabe, 2020; Hidalgo-McCabe, 2020). In this study, we explore classroom interactional practices by one science teacher teaching the same content in both groups (grade 7 HE and LE strands), and the effect of such interactional practices on enhancing (or not) students’ higher order thinking skills and the expression of academic content in the L2 or L1. For the analysis, we developed a multi-layered analytical model which incorporates the construct of cognitive discourse functions (CDFs) (Dalton-Puffer, 2013) and the semantic dimension of Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) (Maton, 2013, 2020). We find significant differences across the two groups in the use of CDFs and ‘semantic codes’ for knowledge construction and meaning making. More specifically, the results show a more frequent use of the CDF evaluate and a higher rate of semantic density (abstractions) in classroom discourse in the HE strand.

Keywords: CLIL, cognitive discourse functions, equity, LOTS/HOTS, semantic codes
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Theoretical framework
    • Cognitive discourse functions
    • The semantic dimension in Legitimation Code Theory
  • The context of the study: The Comunidad de Madrid bilingual program
  • Objectives and research questions
  • Data and method
  • Results
  • Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.22026.evn
References
Breeze, R., & Dafouz, E.
(2017) Constructing complex cognitive discourse functions in higher education: An exploratory study of exam answers in Spanish- and English medium instruction settings. System, 70 1, 81–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cervantes-Soon, C. G., Dorner, L., Palmer, D., Heiman, D., Schwerdtfeger, R., & Choi, J.
(2017) Combating inequalities in two-way language immersion programs: Toward critical consciousness in bilingual education spaces. Review of Research in Education, 41 (1), 403–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Codó, E., & Patiño-Santos, A.
(2018) CLIL, unequal working conditions and neoliberal subjectivities in a state secondary school. Language Policy, 17 (4), 479-499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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), 216–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., & Llinares, A.
(2022) CLIL in the 21st Century: Retrospective and prospective challenges and opportunities. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 10 (2), 182–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evnitskaya, N., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2023) Cognitive discourse functions in CLIL classrooms: Eliciting and analysing students’ oral categorizations in science and history. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26 (3), 311–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Agüero, M., & Hidalgo-McCabe, E.
(2020) CLIL students’ affectivity in the transition between education levels: The effect of streaming at the beginning of secondary education. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 21 (6), 363–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flores, N.
(2013) Silencing the subaltern: Nation-state/colonial governmentality and bilingual education in the United States. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10 (4), 263–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flores, N., & García, O.
(2017) A critical review of bilingual education in the United States: From basements and pride to boutiques and profit. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37 1, 14–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo-McCabe, E.
(2020) Streaming in CLIL and its effects on students’ socialization in school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. UAM Repository. [URL]
Llinares, A.
(2015) Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28 (1), 58–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Dafouz, E.
(2010) Content and language integrated programmes in the Madrid region: Overview and research findings. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Llinares, A., & Evnitskaya, N.
(2021) Classroom interaction in CLIL programs: Offering opportunities or fostering inequalities? TESOL Quarterly, 55 (2), 366–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Nikula, T.
(2016) Teacher and student evaluative language in CLIL across contexts: Integrating SFL and pragmatic approaches. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lo, Y.Y., Lin, A.M., & Liu, Y.
(2023) Exploring content and language co-construction in CLIL with semantic waves. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26 (3), 289–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo, F., Granados, A., & Rico, N.
(2021) Equity in bilingual education: Socioeconomic status and Content and Language Integrated Learning in monolingual Southern Europe. Applied Linguistics, 42 (3), 393–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín Rojo, L.
(2015) The social construction of inequality in and through interaction in multilingual classrooms. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 490–505). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Maton, K.
(2013) Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 24 1, 8–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Semantic waves: Context, complexity and academic discourse. In J. R. Martin, K. Maton, & Doran, Y. J. (Eds.), Accessing academic discourse: Systemic functional linguistics and Legitimation Code Theory (pp. 59–85). Routledge.Google Scholar
Moller, S., & Stearns, E.
(2012) Tracking success: High school curricula and labor market outcomes by race and gender. Urban Education, 47 (6), 1025–1054. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morton, T.
(2012) Teachers’ knowledge about language and classroom interaction in content and language integrated learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
(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), 7–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morton, T., & Llinares, A.
forthcoming). Building teachers’ knowledge of cognitive discourse functions to integrate content and language: A semantic analysis. In S. Ballinger, R. Fielding, & D. Tedick Eds. International perspectives on teacher education for immersion and content-based contexts Multilingual Matters
Nashaat-Sobhy, N., & Llinares, A.
(2023) CLIL students’ definitions of historical terms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26 (3), 331–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., Skinnari, K., & Mård-Miettinen, K.
(2022) Diversity in CLIL as experienced by Finnish CLIL teachers and students: Matters of equality and equity. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakes, J.
(2005) Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). Yale University Press.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M.
(2008) Demonstration of the UAM CorpusTool for text and image annotation. In Proceedings of the ACL-08: HLT Demo Session (Companion Volume) (pp. 13–16). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez Cañado, M. L.
(2021) Inclusion and diversity in bilingual education: A European comparative study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siepmann, P., Rumlich, D., Matz, F., & Römhild, R.
(2021) Attention to diversity in German CLIL classrooms: Multi-perspective research on students’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Somers, T., & Llinares, A.
(2021) Students’ motivation for content and language integrated learning and the role of programme intensity. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24 (6), 839–854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsuchiya, K., & Pérez Murillo, M. D.
(2019) Content and Language Integrated Learning in Spanish and Japanese Contexts. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, R., & McCabe, A.
(2023) Expressing evaluation across disciplines in primary and secondary CLIL writing: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26 (3), 345–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar