Cover not available
Article published In:
Research on EFL learning by young children in Spain
Edited by María del Pilar García Mayo
[Language Teaching for Young Learners 3:2] 2021
► pp. 337–362

What is an ecosystem?

Defining science in primary school CLIL contexts

 | Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
 | Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
In Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) contexts, students are expected to express disciplinary knowledge in a second/foreign language. One construct that has proven useful for the identification and realization of language functions in disciplinary knowledge is Dalton-Puffer’s (2013) model of cognitive discourse functions (CDFs). Additionally, Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) has already been proven useful for distinguishing lexico-grammatical features that characterise different CDFs in CLIL students’ productions (e.g., Nashaat-Sobhy & Llinares, 2020; Evnitskaya & Dalton-Puffer, 2020). In this article, we use SFL to analyse the oral and written realisations of the CDF Define by 6th grade students participating in a CLIL program in Madrid, Spain. A total of 83 students responded to the same prompt (on science) in writing (in the form of a blog) as well as orally (in the form of an interview). In the oral interviews the co-construction of definitions by the students with the interviewer (researcher) and another peer are explored using the notion of Legitimation Code Theory and the concept of semantic waves (Maton, 2013). The analysis of students’ definitions is also related to primary CLIL teachers’ evaluations using comparative judgement.
Keywords: CLIL, systemic functional linguistics, semantic waves, oral and written definitions, comparative judgement
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The language of science in CLIL
  • 3.Defining as a cognitive linguistic operation
    • 3.1Definitions across languages
    • 3.2Definitions across modes
    • 3.3Students’ definitions and pedagogy
  • 4.The present study
  • 5.Context, data and procedures
    • 5.1Data
    • 5.2Procedure
  • 6.Findings
    • 6.1Students’ written definitions across languages
    • 6.2Students’ definitions across modes
    • 6.3CLIL teachers’ judgements of students’ definitions
  • 7.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.20010.lli
References (42)
References
Beacco, J. C. (2010). Items for a Description of Linguistic Competence in the Language of Schooling Necessary for Teaching/Learning History (End of Obligatory Education). Strasbourg: Language Policy Division, Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Benelli, B., Belacchi, C., Gini, G., & Lucangeli, D. (2006). ‘To define means to say what you know about things’: The development of definitional skills as metalinguistic acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 33(1), 71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, B. B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campillo, J. M., Sánchez, R., & Miralles, P. (2019). Primary teachers’ perceptions of CLIL implementation in Spain. English Language Teaching, 12(4), 149–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe CM/Rec. (2014). Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the importance of competences in the language(s) of schooling for equity and quality in education and for educational success. Retrieved on 25 December, 2018 from [URL]
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.Google Scholar
Cummins, J., Swain, M., Nakajima, K., Handscombe, J., Green, D., & Tran, C. (1984). Linguistic interdependence among Japanese and Vietnamese immigrant students. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Communicative competence approaches to language proficiency assessment: Research and application (pp. 60–81). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Brückl-Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L. M., & Lechner, L. (2018). Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL lessons: towards an empirical validation of the CDF construct. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 61, 29–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escobar Urmeneta, C., & Evnitskaya, N. (2014). Do you know Actimel?’ The adaptive nature of dialogic teacher-led discussions in the CLIL science classroom: A case study. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 165–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evnitskaya, N., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions in CLIL classrooms: Eliciting and analysing students’ oral categorizations in science and history. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2007). Language and education. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
He, Q. & Forey, G. (2018). Meaning-making in a secondary science classroom: A systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis. In K. S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, V., & Hopf, J. (2015). An analysis of cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL biology lessons (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of Vienna. Retrieved from [URL]
Hughes, S. P., & Madrid, D. (2020). The effects of CLIL on content knowledge in monolingual contexts. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 48–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, I., & Wheadon, C. (2015). Peer assessment using comparative and absolute judgement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 471, 93–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemke, J. (2003). Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions. Retrieved from [URL]
Lin, A. M. (2016). Language across the curriculum & CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Lo, Y. Y., Lin, A. M. Y., & Liu, Y. (2020). Exploring content and language co-construction in CLIL with semantic waves. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Madrid, D. (2011). Monolingual and bilingual students’ competence in social sciences. In D. Madrid & S. Hughes (Eds.), Studies in Bilingual Education (pp. 195–222). Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malakoff, M. E. (1988). The effect of language of instruction on reasoning in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9(1), 17–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marinellie, S. A. (2009). The content of children’s definitions: The oral-written distinction. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 25(1), 89–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 241, 8–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Semantic waves: Context, complexity and academic discourse. In J. R. Martin, K. Maton & Y. J. Doran (Eds.), Accessing academic discourse: Systemic functional linguistics and legitimation code theory (pp. 59–85). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maton, K., & Doran, Y. J. (2017). Semantic density: A translation device for revealing complexity of knowledge practices in discourse, part 1 – wording. Onomázein: Revista de Lingüística, Filología y Traducción de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 11, 46–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. London: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
Nashaat-Sobhy, N., & Llinares, A. (2020). CLIL students’ definitions of historical terms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T. (2017). What’s the moment thingy?’– On the emergence of subject-specific knowledge in CLIL classroom interaction. In J. Langman & H. Hansen-Thomas (Eds.), Discourse analytic perspectives on STEM education. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle 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, 13–16. Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, A. (2012). The method of adaptive comparative judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice, 191, 281–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pladevall-Ballester, E., & Vallbona, A. (2016). CLIL in minimal input contexts: A longitudinal study of primary school learners’ receptive skills. System, 581, 37–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2019). Do teachers care about research? The research–pedagogy dialogue. ELT Journal, 73(1), 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snow, C., Cancino, H., Temple, D., & Schley, S. (1990). Giving formal definitions: A linguistic or metalinguistic skill. In E. Bialystock (Ed.), Language processing and language awareness by bilingual children (pp. 90–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trimble, L. (1985). English for science and technology: A discourse approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vollmer, J. H. (2010). Items for a description of linguistic competence in the language of schooling necessary for learning/teaching sciences (at the end of compulsory education): An approach with reference points. Language and school subjects: linguistic dimensions of knowledge building in school curricula (2). Language Policy Division. Directorate of Education and Languages, DGIV. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R., & McCabe, A. (2020). Expressing evaluation across disciplines in primary and secondary CLIL writing: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Y. & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 581, 149–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Llinares, Ana & Tarja Nikula
2024. CLIL students’ production of cognitive discourse functions: Comparing Finnish and Spanish contexts. Language and Education 38:3 ► pp. 381 ff. DOI logo
Nikula, Tarja, Teppo Jakonen & Leila Kääntä
2024. Multimodal practices of unpacking and repacking subject-specific knowledge in CLIL physics and chemistry lessons. Learning and Instruction 92 ► pp. 101932 ff. DOI logo
Arias-Hermoso, Roberto & Ainara Imaz Agirre
2023. Exploring multilingual writers in secondary education: insights from a trilingual corpus. European Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Badham, Louise & Antony Furlong
2023. Summative assessments in a multilingual context: What comparative judgment reveals about comparability across different languages in Literature. International Journal of Testing 23:2 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Llinares, Ana & Nashwa Nashaat-Sobhy
2023. CLIL Students’ Academic Language Performance on a Non-curricular Topic: a Comparison Between High-Exposure and Low-Exposure Groups. English Teaching & Learning 47:3 ► pp. 337 ff. DOI logo
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 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.