Cover not available
Part of
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL
Edited by Ana Llinares and Tom Morton
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 47] 2017
► pp. 221–235

Assessment for learning in CLIL classroom discourse

The case of metacognitive questions

| Autonomous University of Madrid
| Autonomous University of Madrid
This chapter explores the significance of metacognitive questions in primary CLIL classrooms in which teachers implement Assessment for Learning (AfL), a methodology which requires the teacher to help students assess learning gaps and work toward closing them (Black & Wiliam 1998a, 1998b; Black et al. 2003). We present illustrative data from a study comprising 9 AfL lessons belonging to a larger corpus. These sessions were analyzed qualitatively, focusing on extracts featuring metacognitive questions and how they affected teacher-student interaction. Using examples from the data, we show how metacognitive questions, as essential to an AfL approach, encourage students to reflect upon and verbalize their learning processes. Furthermore, they engage students in peer‑ and self-assessment, which also contributes to the awareness of learning gaps and prompts motivation to fill these gaps.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Assessment for Learning and Interaction in CLIL
    • Metacognitive questions in CLIL AfL classrooms
  • Investigating the use of metacognitive questions in AfL CLIL primary classroom discourse
    • Context of the study
    • Methodology
    • Results
  • Discussion and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.13pas
References (29)
References
Assessment for Learning Curriculum Corporation. (2014). Assessment for Learning. Available at <[URL]> (12 April, 2014).
Assessment Reform Group (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Research-based principles of Assessment for Learning to guide classroom practice. Available at <[URL]> (20 January, 2012).
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bingham, G., Holbrook, T., & Meyers, L. E. (2010). Using self-assessments in elementary classrooms. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(5), 59–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Inside the Black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.Google Scholar
(1998b). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. New York, NY: Open University Press and McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Brookhart, S. M. (2009). Editorial: Special issue on the validity of formative and interim assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 1–4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D. (2010). Assessment issues in CLIL. In D. Coyle, P. Hood, & D. Marsh. (Eds.), CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–50). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, C., & Howard, S. (2009). Inside the Primary black box. London: GL Assessment.Google Scholar
Leung, C. (2004). Developing formative teacher assessment: knowledge, practice and change. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1(1), 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On language, learning and documenting learning in conversation analytic SLA research. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising learning in applied linguistics (pp. 105–126). Houndmillls: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rea-Dickins, P. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall: identifying processes of classroom assessment. Language Testing, 18(4), 429–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18: 119–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 77–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, P., & Walsh, S. (2010). Learning a second language through classroom interaction. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising ‘learning’ in applied linguistics (pp. 127–146). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Townsend, D., Adams, P., & White, R. (2010). Successful assessment for learning projects from ASICYCLE 3. Edmonton: Alberta Education.Google Scholar
Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second language classroom research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Gauvain, & M. Cole (Eds.), Mind and Society (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Walsh, S., & Jenks, C. (2010). An introduction to conceptualising learning in applied linguistics. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising learning in applied linguistics (pp. 1–5). Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Julia Hüttner & Ana Llinares
2022. CLIL in the 21st Century. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 10:2 ► pp. 182 ff. DOI logo
Aikawa, Hiroko, Emi Fukasawa & Chantal Hemmi
2021. The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking in CLIL Classes at a Japanese University. In International Perspectives on CLIL [International Perspectives on English Language Teaching, ], ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.