Obstáculos para el desarrollo económico 137

Although much important work on classroom discourse from a sociocultural perspective does not use detailed linguistic or discourse analyses (e.g the work of Mercer or

Mortimer and Scott), other researchers working in this framework have drawn on systemic functional linguistics (SFL) to provide richer descriptions of the linguistic and discursive resources used in making meaning in classrooms. A good example is

Lemke’s (1990) work on language use in science classrooms, in which he used

interactional analysis and SFL to explore the relationships between interactional formats and the semantics (‘thematics’ in his terms) of science content. Wells (1996, 1999, 2007) has combined Vygotskian sociocultural theory with the systemic functional concept of genre to explore the roles of what he calls ‘discoursing’ in mediating educational activity. Gibbons (2002, 2003, 2006) has used systemic functional linguistics to explore language as a tool for learning in second language education contexts. Her work has focused on how primary ESL learners in mainstream classrooms in Australia cope with the demands of learning academic content in English as a second language. Gibbons’ work has a strong sociocultural perspective, particularly in its use of the metaphor of scaffolding, but it draws mainly on Hallidayan systemic functional linguistics. In Gibbons’ work, the L2 as a tool for learning is seen as having a mediating or ‘bridging’ function (Gibbons 2006) in which the task is to scaffold the ESL learners’ appropriation of not only the subject-matter concepts and skills, but the appropriate L2 registers in which to construe meaning. A key notion in Gibbons’ work is that of the ‘mode-continuum’ (Martin 2001), which she uses to describe how the L2 used in the classroom shifts from a more context-embedded spoken mode, to a less context- embedded and more academic written mode (Gibbons 2003).

While Gibbons’ work is in a rather different educational and sociolinguistic context to European foreign-language CLIL, the issues it raises are highly instructive for an understanding of how the L2 gets used as a tool for learning in this context. CLIL learners are also faced with the task of using both the spoken and written modes in classroom discourse to construe the meanings of relevance to the different academic subjects. They need to use the L2 in classroom talk to shift between their everyday experiences and the more academic language through which content knowledge is construed (see Llinares, Morton and Whittaker 2012). In using the L2 as a tool for learning, the CLIL teacher needs to establish and maintain the ‘communication systems’ through which this can be achieved.

Also within systemic functional linguistics, Christie (2002) has used a broad interpretation of the notion of genre to describe ‘curriculum macrogenres’, longer teaching sequences which can extend over several lessons, and which go through stages, in themselves genres, through which classroom talk is used to orient students to tasks, tasks are carried out and the sequence is closed. Christie draws on Bernstein’s (1996) notion of pedagogic discourse to identify two main ways in which language is used as a tool for learning in classrooms: the regulative register through which order and control are maintained, and the instructional register through which subject-related knowledge and skills are communicated. Using a concept from systemic functional grammar, she describes the first register as ‘projecting’ the latter, in a way that is analagous to

Bernstein’s claim that the instructional register is embedded in the regulative. In CLIL research, Llinares, Morton and Whittaker (2012) have used the framework of the regulative and instructional registers to show how CLIL teachers regulate the social world of the classroom and communicate about subject-matter content. Using another set of concepts from Bernstein’s work - horizontal and vertical discourses (Bernstein 1999), they show how, within the instructional register, classroom talk shifts between more everyday (horizontal) knowledge and more technical or scientific vertical knowledge.

Another line of classroom research which shares many of the theoretical foundations of SFL is the Birmingham School of Discourse Analysis (Trappes-Lomax 2006). Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) developed a complex hierarchical framework consisting of acts, moves, exchanges and transactions for analysing classroom talk. By far the most

influential and lasting construct from their model is the IRF exchange, a three-part sequence in which the teacher initiates by asking a question or eliciting information, students respond, and the teacher follows up often with an evaluative move. This structure was also identified by Mehan (1979) as the initiation-response-evaluation (IRE) sequence, and by Lemke (1990) and Nassaji and Wells (2000) as ‘triadic dialogue’. This exchange was seen to be prevalent in Sinclair and Coulthard’s study, and was taken up by other researchers who found it to be an extremely frequent

structure of classroom talk in many educational contexts. A good many early studies of classroom discourse decried the ubiquity of the IRF pattern, seeing it as limiting students’ opportunities to engage with content learning and participate fully in classsroom talk (e.g. Dillon 1988; Wood 1992). One aspect of the IRF pattern which came in for sharp criticism was the use of ‘display’ or ‘known answer’ questions, that is, questions to which the teacher already knew the answer. However, in more recent work, the IRF pattern has been undergoing something of a rehabilitation, with applied linguists working in both general education and language teaching pointing out that IRF patterns need to be seen in the context of teachers’ wider pedagogical goals, and how they form part of teaching sequences or curriculum macrogenres extending over longer periods of time (Christie 2002). Other researchers have focused on the ways in which the third, follow-up move can have functions well beyond simple evaluation of learners’ output, and can provide a context for much more dialogic interaction in which learners’ ideas are extended and elaborated on (Cullen 2002; Jarvis and Robinson 1997; Nassaji and Wells 2000).

In CLIL classroom discourse studies, the findings on the use of the IRF pattern have been somewhat mixed. Nikula (2005), in a study comparing CLIL and EFL classrooms, found that the interaction in the CLIL classrooms was less rigidly controlled than in the EFL classrooms, with the CLIL classrooms providing more space for dialogic

interaction. However, Dalton-Puffer, in her 2007 study of Austrian CLIL classrooms found a preponderance of restrictive IRF exchanges initiated by teacher display questions. However, as noted above in the context of non-CLIL classroom discourse studies, it is necessary to approach such fndings with caution, as IRF exchanges need to be seen in relation to teachers’ pedagogical purposes and over longer periods of time. There is also the question raised by conversation analysis-based studies of the reliability

of coding interactional sequences as IRF, as this does not afford an emic perspective on the actions from the participants’ point of view (see Seedhouse 2004: 58-62).

Turning to CLIL research on classroom discourse, there have been mixed results about the effectiveness of these classrooms as environments for learner participation and engagement. As indicated above, Nikula’s (2005) findings are rather optimistic about the CLIL classrooms in her study as environments for meaningful participation and the expression of a wider range of pragmatic functions. In her comparison of EFL and CLIL contexts, interaction in the EFL classrooms was seen as rather limited, with

students using English for a rather restricted set of pragmatic functions in both the lower and upper secondary EFL settings: they mainly answer the teacher’s questions or those presented by other classmates based on the teaching materials (e.g. in the form of ready-made questions in exercise books).

(Nikula 2005: 49)

However, in the CLIL classrooms, learners were much more actively involved in asking information-seeking questions, negotiating meaning, and using a wider range of

pragmatic functions. Nikula points out that the practical nature of the activities and the use of pair and group work, along with the teacher’s handling of the discourse,

prevented the interaction from becoming ‘an initiation–response–feedback sequence typical of classroom discourse’ (p. 51). These findings have important implications for research into CLIL classroom interaction, as the type of subject-matter pedagogy will have a strong impact on the opportunities for participation in L2 interaction. This applies not only to differences between EFL and CLIL, but also within CLIL teaching of the same subject, as Evnitskaya and Morton (2011) show in the case of CLIL

biology, where the discursive demands and possibilities can be very different depending on whether students are participating in hands-on lab work or a teacher-fronted

classroom discussion. In the setting of this study, the Bilingual Education Project (BEP) in Spain, there was a strong emphasis on student-centred pedagogy and ‘hands-on’ teaching, which could be expected to be reflected in the ways in which L2 interaction mediated opportunities for both subject-matter and language learning.

In another important study of discourse and interaction in CLIL classrooms, Dalton- Puffer (2007) came to rather different conclusions about their efficacy as contexts for L2 development. In her book-length treatment, she gives a detailed account of a range of phenomena in CLIL classroom discourse, such as pragmatic aspects of interpersonal language use, the use of academic language functions such as explanations and

definitions, and the organization of repair. Overall, the findings suggest that the

Austrian CLIL classrooms were a rather limited environment for the use of a wide range of language functions, particularly due to the extensive use of the three-part IRF

structure. She somewhat pessimistically concluded that ‘The bread and butter of Austrian CLIL classrooms is obviously facts, facts, and facts.’ (Dalton-Puffer, 2007: 125). She also noted a lack of explicit focus on language, with opportunities being lost to, for example, point out the features of common academic language functions such as definitions.

Both Nikula and Dalton-Puffer have focused on CLIL classroom interaction as a setting for the use of a range of pragmatic features in the L2. Although the development of learners’ ability to use pragmatic features of the L2 is dealt with as a matter of competence in section 3.4 below, it is important to address this area as an aspect of CLIL classroom interaction, and the opportunities it may or may not provide for the use of pragmatic functions, particularly directives. Dalton-Puffer (2007) and Dalton-Puffer and Nikula (2006) draw on Christie’s (2002) distinction between the regulative and instructional registers to show how each can be a context for pragmatic uses of language. They show how the two registers offer different possibilities for using pragmatic functions in CLIL classroom interaction. For example, Dalton-Puffer and Nikula (2006) suggest that the regulative register is richer in its opportunities for use of context-dependent pragmatic language than the instructional register. They show that a combination of factors in classroom interaction impacts on the opportunity to use pragmatic functions such as directives. For example, the object of a request - whether it is for information or action - will play a crucial role. In classrooms it is not usual for students to ask teachers to carry out actions, but it is quite normal to ask for information about procedures in the regulative register (Dalton-Puffer and Nikula 2006: 259-60). Also, as discussed above, the format of the activity - whether whole class or group work - will have an impact. As Dalton-Puffer and Nikula point out, group work allows

in the area of pragmatic aspects of CLIL classroom interaction, Maillat and Serra (2009) describe a ‘mask’ effect in which CLIL learners, by acting out roles in role play may reduce their inhibitions and therefore ‘feel confident to explore the full range of discourse strategies’ (p. 201).

3.2.3 CLIL and content-based classrooms as interactional spaces for L2