CDFs and CLIL

 

term “construct” was used as a way of depriving the categories from essentialist qualities. The growth and specification of the construct is still on the way. In Dalton‐

Puffer’s words (2013:237):

It is thus not unlikely that the construct, when applied in one specific context, to one specific subject (say, for example, chemistry education in Bulgaria, social studies in Singapore), may take on a very specific shape and perhaps further elements. The same will most likely happen once more subjects and disciplines are taken into account, and once a broader empirical basis is sought for it in actual educational practice. The aim of the construct is thus to serve as a heuristic which enables such more specific explorations.

The 7 types of CDFs were simplified and used as the last element of the knowledge layer needed for this study. They were simplified reducing them to the ones that were more commonly observed in the primary classroom setting. In this way, Evaluate and Explain were used as defined by Dalton‐Puffer (2013) and another CDF (Fact) was added that tried to mainly account for Classify, Describe and Define.

Explore and Report were not so commonly found in the primary data however they would also fall under the third category used: Fact. This third category may be perceived to entail a type of content more than a communicative intention. However, it is a category that manages to contain the uses of the other three.

The use of the simplified CDFs brings a cognitive element into the multi‐layered analytical model proposed in this dissertation. It also deals, like Dalton‐Puffer’s

“construct”, with the (content and language) integrative focus of the present study.

The adaptations made to CDF model will be further explained in Chapter 5.

 

reality of the CLIL implementations

“

is driven by the logic of the content‐subjects:

CLIL lessons are timetabled as content‐lessons, taught by specialist teachers of those subjects through the medium of English, and follow the national curriculum of the content subject”. She even adds that research has proven that even those teachers who have dual qualification don’t make a difference (Badertscher and Bieri, 2009;

Dalton‐Puffer, 2007a;).

Dalton‐Puffer proposes to solve the problem of integration in CLIL at the level of different pedagogies. The need is therefore re‐directed towards linking the pedagogies of the different content subjects with the pedagogy of language teaching:

in developing the understanding of integration, there is a need to look for convergences in the curricular goals of second/foreign language education and subject‐specific education(s) and understand how classroom teaching and learning can work towards these goals (2013:219‐220).

She proposes to answer to this need for integration of the “subject specific cognitive learning goals with the linguistic representation they receive in the classroom interaction” through her CDF construct (idem:220):

Since learning as a cognitive event is not directly observable, the nearest we can hope to get is its observable analogues – in this case classroom interaction between teachers and learners as they construct knowledge together through interacting verbally (e.g. Wells 1999; Mercer 2000).

Dalton‐Puffer proposes this construct after analysing the cognitive learning goals from the point of view of subject‐specific education and curriculum theory as well as from the applied linguistics perspective

.

In her words, this construct “has a conceptual foundation in both linguistics and education to stand up to the requirement of ‘integration’ while at the same time being sufficiently constrained to be operationalise in empirical research” (2013:220). This same educational and linguistic foundation has driven this study to unite this model with two theoretical frameworks (SFL and SCT) in order to be able to develop a multi‐layered analytical model that seeks to reflect the integrative need of the globalised learning present in the classroom nowadays.

 

This study is set within the integrative context of content and language. To account for this integration, linguistic and educational features have combined to elaborate a complete analytical model destined to suit the needs of this integrative aim present in any learning setting in general and particularly in CLIL. This chapter has specifically focused on the linguistic models, while the next chapter will address the more educational features. The linguistic elements shown here were used to elaborate several layers of the multi‐layered analytical model proposed by this research, namely the discourse layer, the knowledge layer, and partially the interactional layer. First, the chapter presented the SFL conception of learning as a social semiotic referring to language development and Halliday’s concept of learning a language. Later it delved deeper into the stratified elements of language put forward by SFL theory. Within this perspective, the elements used in the discourse and knowledge layer of this study’s analytical model were presented in more detail.

In this way, at the discourse level, Eggins and Slade’s speech functions for the analysis of casual conversation were discussed, whereas at the knowledge level and within the register theory, Christie’s classroom registers were outlined. The last part of this chapter has dealt with the more cognitive approach present in this study:

Dalton‐Puffer’s CDFs.

This chapter has, then, presented the need to approach the language component of this study from a meaningful and functional perspective. It has also added a cognitive concept of learning. The road from the linguistic site of the study aims now at reaching the next stop, the educational part of the model drawing on socio‐

cultural approaches to learning which will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.

       

 

   

Chapter 3: Learning through talk: educational

In document Language use and knowledge contruction in CLIL group work activities. Underpinning content and language integration (página 125-128)