Cognitive Discourse Functions meet historical competences

Dalton‐Puffer, Christiane; Bauer-Marschallinger, Silvia

doi:10.1075/jicb.17017.dal

Cited by 16 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This CDF-Construct has been empirically validated for different subjects in a number of MA-theses, summarized in Dalton-Puffer et al (2018). Furthermore, Dalton-Puffer and Bauer-Marschallinger (2019) have shown that the CDF-Construct is compatible with competency-based history education as conceptualized in the Austrian context, both from a theoretical and empirical point of view, indicating that CDFs could work well to operationalize the integration of subject and language learning. Morton (2020), too, argues that CDFs can be used as "building blocks" to foster "focused and principled integration of content, literacy and language" (p. 11).…”

Section: Operationalizing the Integration Of Content And Language: Cognitive Discourse Functionsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Involving Students in Educational Design: How Student Voices Contribute to Shaping Transdisciplinary CLIL History Materials

Bauer-Marschallinger¹

2020

JPLL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although many studies have investigated students’ perspectives towards Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), few studies have actively involved learners when creating research-based materials. The scarcity of such studies also stems from the limited number of research projects that operationalize scientific insights for classroom implementation in the first place. This paper is connected to such a study, set within a design-based research (DBR) framework. Apart from investigating theoretical underpinnings of content and language integration, this ongoing PhD study also involves the development of research-based transdisciplinary content-and-language-integrative teaching materials over several cycles. Amongst other forms of data collection, focus group interviews with students before and after each intervention formed a central element of the design process. This work-in-progress article is concerned with the students’ role in shaping content-and-language-integrative materials, shedding light on their concerns and needs at various stages in the design process. Initial results suggest that the learners’ voices were crucial in the development of these materials. Moreover, in line with the overall thrust of DBR, it appears that a one-time intervention does not suffice even when considering the students’ beliefs and needs. Instead, several cycles of development are needed to create an approach that works for the learners.

show abstract

Section: Operationalizing the Integration Of Content And Language: Cognitive Discourse Functionsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Involving Students in Educational Design: How Student Voices Contribute to Shaping Transdisciplinary CLIL History Materials

Bauer-Marschallinger¹

2020

JPLL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL Programmes: A Content and Language Integrated Perspective

Pozo

Llinares

2021

International Perspectives on CLIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CLIL Students’ Academic Language Performance on a Non-curricular Topic: a Comparison Between High-Exposure and Low-Exposure Groups

Llinares,

Nashaat-Sobhy

2023

English Teaching & Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) contexts, when students are prompted to express content in a second language, they are expected to draw on their knowledge of the topic at hand and use linguistic resources they have learnt implicitly or explicitly in the content and/or language class. In some CLIL programs, while some students study academic subjects like history in the L2, other students study fewer and more practical subjects such as art. This is the case with high-exposure (HE) and low-exposure (LE) groups, respectively, in the Madrid bilingual secondary school programs. Thus, HE students are expected to perform better in the expression of academic content in the L2, but it is not clear if this is also the case when prompted to write about a topic that is not part of their curriculum. In this study, we compare the texts written by groups of CLIL students with different degrees of exposure to English (HE and LE) in response to a prompt on the Women’s Movement (Feminism) eliciting Cognitive Discourse Functions, such as defining or evaluating, among others. The aim of the study was to compare how HE and LE students make specialist-knowledge claims and use their voices in this topic, which they have not been instructed in, across different CDFs. Results show differences both across groups (HE and LE) and across CDFs, showing an advantage for knowledge transfer in the HE group.

show abstract

Cognitive Discourse Functions meet historical competences

Cited by 16 publications

References 18 publications

Involving Students in Educational Design: How Student Voices Contribute to Shaping Transdisciplinary CLIL History Materials

Involving Students in Educational Design: How Student Voices Contribute to Shaping Transdisciplinary CLIL History Materials

Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL Programmes: A Content and Language Integrated Perspective

CLIL Students’ Academic Language Performance on a Non-curricular Topic: a Comparison Between High-Exposure and Low-Exposure Groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About