Cognitive Discourse Functions: A Bridge between Content, Literacy and Language for Teaching and Assessment in CLIL

Morton, Tom

doi:10.5565/rev/clil.33

Cited by 50 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the course of the interviews, however, both groups voiced the need for both input and output scaffolding to make historical content accessible to them. Considering that they also mentioned difficulties with expressing certain language functions and responding appropriately to performative verbs, which matches the results by Dalton-Puffer and Bauer-Marschallinger ( 2019), a CDF-based approach appeared to be suitable for the development of CLIL materials, which is in line with suggestions by Morton (2020) and Nashaat Sobhy (2018).…”

Section: Discussion and Implications For The Designsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…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). Similarly, Nashaat Sobhy (2018), who looked into the operationalization of teaching definitions in the context of content-based instruction, concludes that Dalton-Puffer's CDF-Construct is "useful in the creation of a blueprint to teaching 'defining'" (p. 108) and recommends to explore CDFs more extensively to "conciliate teaching content and language" (p. 110).…”

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

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Bauer-Marschallinger¹

2020

JPLL

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: Discussion and Implications For The Designsupporting

confidence: 84%

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

confidence: 99%

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

Bauer-Marschallinger¹

2020

JPLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is evident in the percentage of 55 % of students who have low language skills have low learning outcomes as well. Morton (2020) confirms that there is a relationship between language, content, and literacy. This means that students' language skills are crucial to support the learning outcomes of students.…”

Section: Which Statement Describes What Happens To These Molecules Next?mentioning

confidence: 58%

Learning Chemistry in English: The Relationship between Language Skills and Learning Outcomes

Firmayanto

Heliawati

Rubini

2020

Tadris

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aims to analyze the relationship between English language skills and the students' learning outcomes in chemistry learning that uses English as the medium of instruction (EMI). This qualitative descriptive study was conducted on 40 high school students. Data is collected and analyzed in the form of the test result of the language skills and learning outcomes. The results for students' language skills: 75 % of students are at level A2 (primary user), 15 % are at level B1 (intermediate), 5 % are at level B2 (upper-intermediate), and 5 % are at level C1 (advance/proficient user). The students' chemistry learning results are averagely low, i.e., 70 % of students gained a score under 75 as the minimum criteria of standard learning, only 30 % of students reached the score above the KKM (Criteria of Minimum Competency). The conclusion of this research is that there is a relationship between language skills and chemistry learning outcomes. Learning chemistry in English has not given good results for students' learning outcomes. Therefore, the demands of learning in English need to be supported by good language skills to understand the learning content.

show abstract

“…By being motivated, students will be more eager to learn from each other (Namaziandost et al, 2019;Rochman, 2019) and from the teacher (Kukulska-Hulme & Viberg, 2018;Saha & Singh, 2016). As a consequence, the students feel more responsible to actively take part in constructing their knowledge (He & Lin, 2019;Morton, 2020), and strategically learn the target language (Lo & Lin, 2019;Zhong et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2020

ijl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Cognitive Discourse Functions: A Bridge between Content, Literacy and Language for Teaching and Assessment in CLIL

Abstract: In search of immersion teacher educators' knowledge base: Exploring their readiness to foster an integrated approach to teaching.

Cited by 50 publications

References 11 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

Learning Chemistry in English: The Relationship between Language Skills and Learning Outcomes

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About