Advertisement

Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 49–70 | Cite as

Students’ language use for co-construction of knowledge in CLIL group-work activities: a comparison with L1 settings

  • Amanda Pastrana
  • Ana Llinares
  • Irene Pascual
Schwerpunkt
  • 322 Downloads

Abstract

The role of classroom interaction in CLIL has been addressed in many recent studies. However, most of the existing research has mainly focused on teacher-fronted lessons. The present study aims to analyse and compare students’ language use and co-construction of knowledge during group work activities in CLIL and L1 history classes. In order to obtain comparable data, the same prompt for group discussion was used in both contexts. The data were analysed by means of a multi-level methodological approach including two layers: interaction and register. The main finding reveals that CLIL students seem to work more collaboratively than L1 students. They co-construct knowledge by building on and challenging each other’s ideas, meeting the requirements of exploratory talk, in which students are critically and constructively engaged.

Keywords

CLIL Co-construction of knowledge Group work Peer interaction 

Der Gebrauch von Schülersprache zur Vermittlung von Wissen in CLIL-Gruppenarbeit: ein Vergleich mit L1-Vorgaben

Zusammenfassung

Die Bedeutung der Interaktion in Klassenräumen beim CLIL (inhalts- und sprachintegrierten Lernen) wurde in vielen jüngeren Studien hervorgehoben. Die meisten Untersuchungen konzentrierten sich jedoch auf lehrerorientierten Unterricht. Die vorliegende Studie hat das Ziel, den Gebrauch von Schülersprache und das Vermitteln von Wissen durch Gruppenarbeit im CLIL (L2)-Geschichtsunterricht auf Sekundarstufenniveau zu analysieren. Die Schüler-Interaktionen werden verglichen mit dem von Mitschülern im gleichen Fach in ihrer Muttersprache. Die Daten umfassen dabei drei Gruppenarbeitsdiskussionen von einer CLIL-Schule, in der Geschichte auf Englisch gelehrt wird, und drei von einer Schule, in der Geschichte in der L1 (Spanisch) unterrichtet wird. Die Daten wurden auf der Basis eines mehrschichtigen methodischen Zugangs untersucht, inklusive zweier Kriterien: Interaktion und Wissen. Die wichtigste Schlussfolgerung zeigt, dass CLIL-Schüler in der Lage waren, L2 (Englisch) zu nutzen, um Wissen zu erwerben, indem auf gegenseitige Ideen und Anstöße eingegangen wurde und die Anforderungen von klärenden Gesprächen erfüllt wurden, bei denen Schüler kritisch und konstruktiv mitarbeiten. Interessanterweise schienen diese Schüler auch kooperativer mitzuarbeiten als ihre Mitschüler, die den gleichen Stoff auf L1 bearbeiteten.

Schlüsselwörter

CLIL Gruppenarbeit Interaktion bei Mitschülern Wissensvermittlung 

References

  1. Badertscher, H., & Bieri, T. (2009). Wissenserwerb im content and language integrated learning: Empirische Befunde und Interpretationen. Bern: Haupt.Google Scholar
  2. Ballinger, S. (2013). Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in French immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  4. Buchholz, B. (2007). Reframing young learner’s discourse structure as a preliminary requirement for a CLIL-based ELT approach. An action research project on conversational language learning from primary students. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (eds.), Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse (pp. 51–78). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  5. Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: a sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61, 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: a functional perspective. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  7. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  10. Gassner, D., & Maillat, D. (2006). Spoken competence in CLIL: A pragmatic take on recent Swiss data. In C. Dalton-Puffer & T. Nikula (eds.), Current Research on CLIL. VIEWZ, 15(3), 15–22.Google Scholar
  11. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  12. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edn.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  13. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Llinares, A. (2015). Integration in CLIL: a proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2010). Historical explanations as situated practice in content and language integrated learning. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2012). Social perspectives in interaction and language learning in CLIL classrooms. In E. Alcón-Soler & M. P. Safont-Jordá (eds.), Discourse and learning across L2 instructional contexts (pp. 105–131). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  17. Llinares, A., & Pastrana, A. (2013). CLIL students’ communicative functions across activities and educational levels. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(A), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2010). Writing and speaking in the history class: a comparative analysis of CLIL and first language contexts. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula & U. Smit (eds.), Language use in Content-and-Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) (pp. 125–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: a counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  24. Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (eds.) (2008). Exploring talk in school: inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  25. Moate, J. (2010). The integrated nature of CLIL: a sociocultural perspective. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 38–45.Google Scholar
  26. Nguyen, M. H. (2013). EFL students’ reflections of peer scaffolding in making a collaborative oral presentation. English Language Teaching, 6(4), 64–73.Google Scholar
  27. Nikula, T. (2005). English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: interactional effects and pragmatic implications. Linguistics and Education, 16(1), 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nikula, T. (2007). The IRF pattern and space for interaction: observations on EFL and CLIL classrooms. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 179–204). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  29. Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Llinares, A. (2013). CLIL classroom discourse: research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 70–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Donnell, M. (2008). UAM corpus tool. http://www.wagsoft.com/CorpusTool/. Accessed: 6th Dec. 2017.Google Scholar
  31. Pastrana, A. (2010). Language functions in CLIL classrooms: students’ oral production in different classroom activities. VIEWZ, 19(3), 72–82.Google Scholar
  32. Rojas-Drummond, S., Perez, V., Velez, M., Gomez, L., & Mendoza, A. (2003). Talking for reasoning among Mexican primary school children. Learning and Instruction, 13(6), 653–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Catalán, J. R. M. (2009). Content and language integrated learning: evidence from research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  34. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  37. Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  38. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Weinstein, M. (2010). TAMS analyzer: a qualitative research tool. http://tamsys.sourceforge.net/. Accessed: 6th Dec. 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Filología Inglesa, Facultad de Filosofía y LetrasUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations