Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 1
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
CROSS CURRICULAR WORK
ON
LANGUAGE AND TEXT DISCOURSE
Máster Universitario en la Enseñanza del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera.
Espc. Teaching English Through Literature
Presentado por:
Dª Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal.
Dirigido por:
Dra. ANA HALBACH
Alcalá de Henares, a 23 de septiembre de 2011
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 2
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION Page 5
1. Teaching experience Page 5
1.1 Improving my teaching practice Page 6
1.2 Cross curricular collaboration Page 7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW Page 8
2 Aims of the literature Page 8
2.1 Integration is fundamental in a bilingual education Page 8
2.2 Changing the methodology to avoid fossilisation Page 9
2.3 Transfer is essential Page 10
2.4 Collaboration between departments is the starting point Page 11
2.5 Scaffolding the production of writing in all departments Page 13
3. CONTEXT Page 14
3. Academic achievements Page 14
3.1 The school’s future Page 16
4. THE STUDY Page 17
4. Obstacles to learning Page 17
4.1 The research Page 17
4.2 Tools and data analysis Page 18
5. METHODOLOGICAL INTERVENTION Page 19
5. Analysis of language and text discourse function
in Science Page 20
5.1 A lack of knowledge transfer on linkers Page 21
5.2 Planning language reinforcement and knowledge
transfer on linkers Page 21
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 3
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
5.3 Text and a lack of knowledge transfer on coherent
sentences Page 23
5.3.1 Planning text reinforcement and knowledge transfer
on coherent sentences Page 24
5.4 Text difficulties and a lack of knowledge transfer
on step by step details Page 24
5.4.1 Implementing text reinforcement and knowledge
transfer on step by step details: the Liz Murray
conference Page 26
5.4.2 Implementing text reinforcement and knowledge
transfer on step by step details: using Boy Page 26
5.4.3 Implementing text reinforcement and knowledge
transfer on step by step details. anecdotal accounts Page 27
5.5 Implementing text reinforcement and knowledge
transfer: applying PCFA to non-fiction texts Page 29
5.5.1 Implementing text reinforcement and knowledge
transfer: applying PCFA to an instructional text Page 30
5.5.2 Implementing text reinforcement and knowledge
transfer: applying PCFA to transactional letters Page 30
5.5.3 Implementing text reinforcement and knowledge
transfer: applying PCFA to a travel brochure and
report writing Page 31
5.6 Implementing the writing process used in English
Language lessons to a Science writing reports Page 32
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 4
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
6. RESULTS Page 33
6.1 Student awareness of the conventions of writing:
A questionnaire Page 33
6.2 Student awareness of the importance of knowledge
transfer to other content subjects: the 2nd
Science report Page 35
7. DISCUSSION Page 38
7. Interpreting the results of the questionnaire Page 38
7.1 An analysis of the results of the second Science report Page 39
8. CONCLUSION Page 41
8. Summarising the issues involved in the ARP Page 41
8.1 Limitations of the study Page 42
8.2 My reflections on the experience Page 43
BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 44
APPENDIX Page 45
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 5
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
1. INTRODUCTION.
1. Teaching experience
My teaching experience has been both varied and rewarding in different ways. I have
been teaching for fourteen years, twelve of which have been in two very different
bilingual secondary schools, in Madrid. The first bilingual school I taught in was a
public school, in La Moraleja1. I taught English applying TEFL methodology. In the
last four years, I have been teaching in a state bilingual school2. I have moved away
from methodology which focuses on teaching English as a foreign language, towards
methodology which centres on teaching English as a first language3; and in particular
teaching academic thinking skills (Zwiers: 2004) through literature. It is an experience
which has made my teaching both meaningful and rewarding.
The rewards of teaching in a bilingual programme are numerable. One of the
most important is that I have not had to use a course book. That freedom has allowed
me to be creative when designing my own resources to teach the content stated in the
bilingual curriculum. In the last four years, I have been able to design schemes of work
which encourage students to analyse and compare, synthesise and interpret both literary
and non literary texts; to design activities to promote academic discussion and
presentations; to involve students actively in deciding the criteria I then use when I
evaluate their work. And finally, I have developed work to enable students to write a
1 I taught at this school from 1998 till 2006. The bilingual groups followed the LOGSE & LOCE
curriculum. This school offered five hours of English a week; and we had to distribute the lessons so that
we taught English using a TEFL course book for three hours a week and an adapted reader for two hours
a week. 2 I have been teaching at my present school from 2007 till the present day. The bilingual groups followed
the MEC/BC curriculum until 2010 when the school voted to transfer to the CAM bilingual progamme. 3 I completed my PGCE (Post Graduate Certificate in Education) in English, at Goldsmith’s college,
University of London. This training helped me to adopt a different methodology to meet the learning
needs of these students through literary texts as opposed to a TEFL coursebook.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 6
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
variety of text types, applying their previous knowledge of a topic to carry out their
writing tasks4. The results have not always been successful the first time round but by
self evaluating my work and materials I have learnt the importance of scaffolding tasks
by providing vocabulary banks, providing writing frames, doing peer correction,
redrafting and remedial work.
1.1 Improving my teaching practice
As a result of the team work amongst the English teachers who teach bilingual groups,
to a greater or lesser degree, the bilingual students finish the 4th
year of ESO being able
to respond to basic and high level reading questions, and use language to communicate
effectively in their writing and oral production. This awareness of language and the
ability to manipulate it for effect is a skill two of my students in 4 ESO have told me
they have applied to subjects such as Spanish. However, this cross curricular use of a
skill learnt in English lessons then being applied in another subject was not something I
had intentionally planned.
The more able students have applied it instinctively but the less able have not. In
the last four years, content subject teachers, who teach in English, have aired concerns
again and again that from a grammatical point of view, a few less able students reach 4
ESO still not being able to write as accurately (and is some cases as coherently) as they
should. They have also expressed concern that pupils do not always structure their ideas
into clear and logical paragraphs. Since content teachers cannot dedicate their time to
4 Schemes of work, which I have developed, have required students to be creative in launching
advertising campaigns, using texts as a springboard to create new drama scripts/performances and turning
autobiographical accounts into metaphorical poems. These creative tasks required students to apply
various academic thinking skills.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 7
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
language-related work, it seems to be necessary for the language teacher and the content
teacher to cooperate in this area.
1.2 Cross curricular collaboration
Promoting cross curricular work is not new in legal educational documents and the most
recent references to cross curricular work are in the CAM Advanced Curriculum5. It
mentions the need for English teachers to work with the Spanish department, the
History & Geography department, as well as the Science department. Yet, although it is
not new, in reality, it very rarely happens between departments. And I for one have
never been involved in cross curricular work on language and text discourse with other
content based teachers.
I believe one of the reasons why I want to begin doing cross curricular work is
so that I can create opportunities to show students that what is learnt in one subject can
be applied to another. If I can coordinate the teaching of certain linguistic and discourse
functions, weaker students6 may see learning as meaningful and useful and become
much more involved and motivated in their own learning process.
Another reason is that in the past four years, I have dedicated very little time to
cross curricular work, and this has been due to the fact that all of my free time, these
four years, has been dedicated to material development for my English lessons7. Not
having a course book to follow has given me tremendous freedom to apply my
knowledge and experience in a creative way, while still fulfilling the curriculum
5 The Advanced Curriculum was officially made law in the Orden 2154/2010, 20
th April 2010
6 In our school, even in the bilingual groups, there have always been between 2 to 4 students, in the 2
nd
and 3rd
year of ESO, out of approximately 50, who re-sit the same year because they do not master basic
reading and writing linguistic or/and discourse functions.
7 Using this methodology requires, from an English teacher, hours of work researching and adapting
authentic material from the internet: both written and oral texts; investing one’s own money in ICT and its
corresponding software; not to mention hours spent teaching oneself to use the software.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 8
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
objectives. However, it has left me with very little time to be able to reflect on how to
improve my teaching practice or plan cross curricular work. Since cross curricular work
makes learning a more positive and meaningful experience for students, this is an aspect
of my teaching I now want to focus on.
I have chosen to focus on 1 ESO A to do this project because I both teach this
group English and I am responsible for coordinating the CAM bilingual programme for
this group. My role as a coordinator has given me the opportunity to sit down with other
teachers, specially the Science teacher, and design ways to help students transfer the
knowledge and skills developed in English to their work to other subjects. The aim of
my project is to work in close collaboration with the Science teacher to encourage
students to transfer language and text knowledge they have acquired in English lessons
to a written task in a Science project
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2. Aims of the literature
The literature I will present defends the need to integrate language, content and thinking
skills in an English lesson that students can transfer to another content subject.
Moreover, the literature I quote fosters collaboration between teachers from different
departments who teach (in the four skills) in the bilingual section.
2.1 Integration is fundamental in a bilingual education
The integration of language, content and thinking skills should become a key element
when an English teacher plans lessons for a bilingual group. Cummins and Saville-
Troike, when writing about the integration of language and content for ESL students,
stated that ESL programs should not conform to teaching conversational skills but
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 9
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
rather focus on developing the cognitive and academic language proficiency students
required to succeed at school. (Cummins: 1984; Saville-Troike: 1984)
Mohan (1990), when discussing the teaching of LEP8 students, also stated that
second language learning needed to steer away from both teaching language “in
isolation” (113) and “content for language development” (113) and steer towards a
focus on language as the medium of learning and using language for academic purposes.
Though Mohan is referring to LEP students, the theory is equally applicable to bilingual
students.
2.2 Changing the methodology to avoid fossilisation
If bilingual pupils are not being challenged academically, and if they are restricted to
learning grammar or vocabulary through rote exercises, then, there is a possibility of a
student’s language fossilising. Halbach (in press) argues that the English teacher needs
to leave his/her traditional TEFL methodology to one side when teaching bilingual
groups because for one reason, students “‘come with greater exposure to the language
than students from a monolingual education’”. And for another reason, “‘a student
needs to be able to use more linguistic resources than those he has studied ... and part of
the success of a bilingual programme depends on being able to prepare students for this
new challenge’”. This responsibility has been allocated to the English teacher9, who has
to take these needs on board when planning how to teach the Advanced Curriculum to a
bilingual group.
8 LEP is the acronym for: Limited English Proficiency students
9 The CAM Advanced curriculum also states that it is the English teacher’s responsibility to reinforce the
language skills students will need to express themselves in content subjects taught in English.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 10
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
Halbach (in press) adds that English teachers who limit themselves to using
TEFL methodology in the English lesson, to teach prescriptive grammar, vocabulary
and the other skills, are not catering to their students’ needs. According to this author,
stretching students’ academically means that we must not only design work that
encourages students to experiment and create, but we must also incorporate the
linguistic or discourse functions they will need for other content subjects in our English
lessons. She adds that there is a need to go beyond the teaching of bottom up strategies.
Thus, the English teacher plays a key role in activating and developing top down
strategies that will be needed for other content subjects.
2.3 Transfer is essential
Promoting opportunities for students to actively transfer knowledge is also important in
bilingual teaching. Mohan (1990) argues that that the knowledge structures students
have are not “fixed or static” (119) but “flexible and dynamic” (119) so the transfer of
these knowledge structures is possible and important since “They [knowledge
structures] underlie expository reading and writing, [and are] being realised in discourse
and grammar in a variety of ways, and that students awareness of them improves
retention of subject matter” (133).
Zwiers (2004) also claims that it is important to develop (in students) certain
academic thinking skills in any given subject. His book, entitled Developing Academic
Thinking Skills, categorises 14 academic thinking skills students need to activate in all
subjects. In these four years, I have worked on several of the skills he mentions, with
ESO students, in English10
. Yet, while I have tried to avoid setting tasks which merely
10
I have focused most of my work with students around analysing, comparing, classifying, synthesizing,
communicating, interpreting and evaluating fiction and non-fiction texts.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 11
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
ask students to recall information, I recognise I have not worked on getting students to
apply what they have learnt to another context. And this is an aspect I planned to work
on.
Jacobs (2010: 9) also states that students need to construct “meaning by making
what she thinks is logical, sensible connection between the new information she reads
and what we already know is stored in knowledge frameworks called ‘schemata’”.
Cross curricular references to help students transfer knowledge in language and
discourse functions is something I propose to do.
What I have taken to be important from the literature cited is that we, the
English language teachers, need to help students not only to interpret different
information sources (for academic purposes) but also to help students apply that
knowledge to other contexts. These two are particularly important not just because
students need to transfer language, linguistic and discourse functions to other content
subjects, but because soon English teachers have to prepare students for external
Cambridge exams in the 2nd
and 4th
year of ESO. Previous experience in preparing
students for external exams has shown me that if they acquire these two skills, they are
more likely to do well in these types of external exams11
.
2.4 Collaboration between departments is the starting point
However, the transfer of knowledge from one subject to another requires collaboration
between teachers from different departments. In his article on knowledge structures,
Mohan (1990) argued that both language teachers and content teachers need to offer
11
It is important to bear in mind that the writing papers, in British external exams (IGCSEs and TEFL
Cambridge exams) our students sit, do not prize recalling skills but test their ability to interpret and
transfer information from one text type to another.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 12
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
each other “mutual support and cooperation” (113) to integrate language and content in
order to benefit their students.
The Advanced Curriculum has itself much content to cover, and this means that
the English teacher cannot do work on promoting transferring skills alone. As a result,
aiding students to transfer academic thinking skills cannot lie solely on the shoulders of
the English teacher, and will require close team work and co-ordination between one
subject teacher and another.
This close team work is echoed in Halbach’s paper (in press) when she writes
that “there must be close coordination” between the English teacher and the content
subject teachers, for such coordination leads “a student to understand that his/her
learning is not compartmentalised and what is learnt in one subject is relevant to
progress in another”. And this close team work is what I propose to do.
It is also a view which is emphasised by Geoff Barton (n/d), in his article
entitled Stop Calling it Literacy. Barton warns of the dangers of leaving the
responsibility of literacy to one sole person when he comments, “As soon as schools
appoint anyone to be coordinator of anything, it’s easy for other staff to abdicate
responsibility: 'Literacy? – oh, that’s her job.' “ The newly created position of bilingual
coordinators (in CAM bilingual schools) will play a pivotal role if coordinating cross
curricular language and discourse function work between teachers is to be successful.
In his article Barton(n/d) then cites George Sampson’s comment (1922: n/d),
that English teachers are teachers of English’ and that,
If you teach History, then presumably you want your pupils to talk like a
historian, read like a historian and write like a historian. If you teach Science,
then you’ll want the same, expect the same of scientists. It should be the case for
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 13
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
all of us – wanting to create future citizens who know how to speak, read and
write like designers, artists, musicians, historians and scientists.
Hence, an important aim of this project is to share good teaching practice by illustrating
how the Science teacher can scaffold writing in Science so that her pupils’ writing
sounds like a scientist’s.
2.5 Scaffolding the production of writing in all departments
Chamot and O’Malley (1994: 51) also write that, “The teacher should model academic
language. Teachers are experts in using academic language [...]." Their work is aimed at
CALLA teachers, but can be applied to our bilingual programme.
Hence, I aim to coordinate the writing process with bilingual teachers who teach
their content in English. This collaboration will involve scaffolding stages in the writing
process, so that our students see that the writing process carried out in English language
lessons applies to all subjects taught in English. Students will thus view their teachers as
models, “they will hear how we navigate texts and see us demonstrate the process ... it’s
about teachers in all their subjects modelling the skills we routinely use.” (Barton: n/d)
By working in this way, Barton argues that the coordinator is left to do just that,
“to coordinate, support, monitor and report progress – but not to be burdened by the
expectation that it’s her job to ‘do’ literacy on behalf of the school community.”
Swain (1988) also views that the students’ linguistic needs need to be catered for
by content teachers. What is more, he states that this requires the content teacher to
know exactly what language the pupils is expected to know, understand and use; and
include language support in his or her lesson plan so that students use that language in
context.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 14
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
In this section I have provided the theoretical grounds for the work I have
carried out. During our language lessons my work centred on making students aware
that the language used in English lessons should be applied, when possible to Science
writing. Moreover, I worked on helping students to apply the knowledge they had from
English lessons on text types to their Science writing. Finally, I shared my teaching
practice on scaffolding writing with the Science teacher so that the scaffolding process
students followed in English lessons was not done in isolation but instead was put into
practice when they had to write a Science report.
3. CONTEXT
3. Academic achievements
My school is situated in a middle class area, in the north of the community of Madrid.
The students’ who enrol at our school go on to achieve successful academic results; our
results being above the average set by the CAM educational authorities:
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 15
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
Last year the school celebrated its 25th
anniversary and amongst its many
achievements was the fact that it was one of the first state schools to offer a bilingual
education in Spain; it is a bilingual education that has been offered since 2003/4.
In 2006/7, the first bilingual group were offered the opportunity to sit IGCSE in
the 4th
year of ESO. 37 pupils at all or many of the following exams: English as a first
Language, Spanish, and Geography. All of the students passed, of those 37 students
who sat these exams, the following high marks were obtained: 7 A* grades; 16 A
grades, 27 Bs and 17 Cs. Though the results of all the schools who participate are not
made public, since 2006/7 we have been informed by the Ministry of Education that the
IGCSE marks at our school have been one of the highest of all the MEC/BC bilingual
schools who sit these exams.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 16
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
3.1 The school’s future
In the last evaluation of the academic year 2009/10, our school voted to opt to become a
Community of Madrid’s bilingual school. Thus, this year, 2010/11, we welcomed our
first linguistic section group, 1st year ESO/A. In total there are 33 students, of which 15
are girls and 18 are boys. In the future, these students will be expected to do two
external exams in English Language12
, and will have the opportunity to continue their
bilingual education until the end of the 2nd
year of Bachillerato.
Academically, their linguistic skills are high. 31 have passed the Cambridge
KET exam (level A2 in the Common European Frame-work of Reference) and 2 have
passed the PET exam (level B1 in the Common European Frame-work of Reference) to
be admitted into this group.
There are two new teachers to the bilingual teaching staff; a Science and a
Physical Education teacher. The teachers who work with this group have high
expectations of their students. They expect to be able to work without too many
misbehaviour problems or learning difficulties as none of the students in the bilingual
section have ever been diagnosed with learning difficulties. All the teachers have passed
the Community’s obligatory English language exam13
making them officially apt to
teach in English at schools. They are all very dedicated professionals, prepared to put in
a great deal of their personal time and effort to make this project work.
12
They will have the opportunity to sit external Cambridge exams at the end of the 2nd
and 4th
year of
ESO.
13 To teach English to a bilingual section, all teachers, both content based and English teachers have to
pass an English language exam set by the autonomous educational authorities. Content based teachers who teach in English are assessed on the four language skills, and the exam is the equivalent of a B2 level, in the Common European Frame-Work of Reference.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 17
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
4. THE STUDY
4. Obstacles to learning
During a bilingual coordination meeting, in the middle of February, the Science teacher
stated that many students in 1 ESO A had weaker writing skills than she had expected to
find. When I asked her to explain further the group’s failings, she highlighted problems
at word level; the students who were weak had a general inability to use suitable
vocabulary. And at text level, many students found it difficult to write coherent
sentences. Moreover, weaker and average grade students were neither writing a detailed
text, nor a text which looked and read like a science report on an experiment they had
done in class on surface tension.
4.1 The research
These concerns aired by the Science teacher lead me to believe that there was a need to
investigate if specific instructions from the language teacher could aid students to
transfer skills that would improve the quality of their Science writing. To begin with, I
wanted to research if, with teacher based instruction, students applied the linkers we
used in our English subject to their next Science report. Secondly, I wanted to research
if, with further teacher reinforcement work, student peer correction on the cross
curricular language objectives14
ensured students wrote coherent sentences in Science.
Thirdly, I wanted to analyse if the work we had done in the English lessons, to
reinforce detail in writing, and the teacher guidance provided when peer correcting the
14
. In October, during a bilingual meeting, teachers agreed to draw students’ attention to four basic cross
curricular language objectives. They are: subject + verb; tense consistency; 3rd
person singular (present
simple) _____s/es; AUX + (correct form). At the beginning of term, we hung posters in class, of these
cross curricular language objectives, to help teachers draw their students’ attention to them.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 18
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
task rubric, enabled their writing to be more detailed in Science. And finally, I wanted
to find out if the work we had done on text types in our English lessons in the second
evaluation, was knowledge they transferred, with teacher guidance, when approaching
their Science report in the third evaluation.
4.2 Tools and data analysis
In order to fulfil these aims, I annotated the information and observations made by the
Science teacher during our meetings about 1º ESO’s writing difficulties. I collected in
the students’ first Science reports and studied them to acquire a better understanding of
what the teacher had wanted and what was not being produced by many students. Next,
I planned in my own yearly planner how I would reinforce the language and text
discourse knowledge some students needed remedial work on.
I also asked students to fill out a questionnaire (Appendix XXV). The aim of the
questionnaire was to find out if the group were applying their knowledge on language
and different text types, knowledge they have worked on in English language lessons to
another subject taught in English. I wanted to find out if students were applying linkers
to the writing they had to do in other subjects; if they were being asked to write full
sentences in other subjects and to write texts which were longer than a few sentences. In
other words, I wanted to know if they were being asked to write paragraphs. I also
wanted to find out if they were asked to write detailed accounts in other subjects.
Moreover, I wanted to find out if students were writing other type of texts for other
subjects and if they could label the type of texts they were being asked to produce.
I asked students to complete the questionnaire anonymously, over the weekend,
so that they could write what they honestly knew or did and not what they thought I
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 19
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
would want to know. I hoped this would make the information I would gather much
more reliable. An overview of their answers to this questionnaire can be found under
section 6 entitled, Results. Then, I coordinated another meeting with the Science teacher
to explain how the writing process was carried out in 1 ESO’s language lessons.
Finally, I collected the second Science report writing to analyse the results
(Appendix XVI, XVII, XVIII) and to see if students had transferred language and text
knowledge better in the second Science report than they had done in the first Science
report. The two scientific reports were analysed by focusing on: if students had written
the subheadings they had been asked to write by the Science teacher; if they had written
the number of paragraphs they had been asked to write. I also counted the sentences in
each paragraph; if a sentence was not making a point being asked of them in that
paragraph, I annotated PNM (point not made). In both reports I counted the number of
linkers used to describe their experiment. To end with, I counted the number of
drawings students had included to explain their experiment.
In the first report students were instructed to end their conclusion with a new
question on surface tension. A question related to their experiment on surface tension
that they would like to know the answer to. However, when they were asked to write the
second report they were not asked to write a new question to enquire about mould. Thus
I wrote NA (students were not asked to write about this) in my own notes.
When I compared both reports the criteria I used was that which the Science
teacher had given to her students. I set about reading and recording the number of
subheadings and paragraphs she had asked them to use. The students’ reports had to
have six subheadings in both reports. In the first Science report she expected to see four
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 20
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
paragraphs and in the second report six paragraphs. In both reports she wanted to see
five bullet points under the subheading Materials, listing the equipment used.
I set about reading each paragraph and counted and recorded the number of
sentences which were used to answer each subheading. I also counted and noted the
number of linkers which were used to describe the method of the experiment step by
step. The Science teacher stated she wanted some illustrations to explain the experiment
they had done and I notated the number of drawings included to describe their
experiment.
Needless to say, this cross curricular investigation involved a closer working
relationship with the Science teacher. Hence, I tried to create the opportunities for us to
coordinate and reinforce language or discourse functions that would be beneficial for
students in what remained of this academic year.
5. METHODOLOGICAL INTERVENTION.
5. Analysis of language and text discourse function in Science
During my first one to one meeting with the Science teacher, she explained that they
had done an experiment on surface tension. She went on to comment that once they had
completed the science experiment, she instructed students to write the following
subheadings: Introduction, Materials, Method, Result, Conclusion, Questions. And that
for each subheading they had to write the relevant information regarding the experiment
they had all carried out on the surface tension of water and alcohol.
We then proceeded to analyse all of 1 ESO A’s reports. She pointed to some
samples of work that lacked complete sentences or had grammar usage which was
incoherent. I noted that 16 out of the 30 reports handed in had incoherent grammar
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 21
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
structures or words which simply did not make sense. I also noticed that only 7 out of
the 30 students had included two or more linkers to describe the method of the
experiment. With this knowledge in mind I planned a series of measures to raise
students’ awareness that they could transfer language and text knowledge from one
subject to another.
5.1 A lack of knowledge transfer on linkers
In the first evaluation, in their English lessons, 1 ESO A had worked on linkers of
sequence, so I had expected more students to include them. The Science teacher
explained that under the subheading “Method”, she had not asked for linkers but to
number the stages of the process, and so explain how the experiment took place. I asked
if adding linkers of sequence in their next report would be possible as they have used
them in their writing tasks in English, and she replied that she would not mind asking
students to add them under this subheading.
5.2 Planning language reinforcement and knowledge transfer on linkers
The table below illustrates the measures I took to reinforce the use of linkers in
descriptive texts and how I promoted this language transfer to Science.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 22
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
What language
knowledge
students needed
to transfer to
other subjects
What material was used to
reinforce language and how
language was reinforced
Where the
material is
found
How language
transfer
awareness was
made
Boy, Reading Comprehension
worksheet.
Appendix I
The use of
linkers of
sequence
A gap fill worksheet on the
autobiographical anecdote ‘Crash
and Smash’.
Appendix II Students were
asked which
other subjects
Recipe texts. Appendix III required the
use of linkers
Transactional letters Appendixes
IV & V
When we finished a chapter on Boy, if the opportunity arose to describe a
sequence of events, as was the case in chapter one, then I asked students to recall and
recount the event using linkers of sequence (Appendix I). When we worked on
recounting autobiographical accounts, the worksheet on my autobiographical account,
entitled ‘Crash and Smash’ (Appendix II) enabled me to recycle linkers of sequence.
Then we worked on recipe writing and students were asked to focus on the importance
of linkers of sequence to describe the process step by step (Appendix III). Finally, when
we worked on informal letters, students were asked to incorporate linkers of sequence to
order the different parts of the question they had to answer (Appendixes IV and V).
During and after all of these tasks, I would ask students to tell me in which other
subjects they could use these linkers, and in what context. This reference to other
subjects in my English lessons is something I had never done before. Many would raise
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 23
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
their hand to answer the subjects these linkers could be used for. They mentioned that
linkers could be used in Science (to describe experiments), Technology (to describe
how engines worked), and in Social Science (to describe how early civilisations
evolved).
5.3 Text and a lack of knowledge transfer on coherent sentences.
The table below illustrates the measures taken to make students aware of the importance
of writing full sentences. They are sentences which must begin with a subject and be
followed by a verb in the correct tense.
What text
knowledge
students
needed to use
in English and
apply to other
subjects
What material was used to
reinforce text knowledge and how
text awareness was reinforced
Where the
material is
found
How text transfer
awareness was
made
The use of
coherent
sentences
(which begin
with a
subject).
And the use of
correct tenses
During and post reading
comprehension questions on Boy
Appendix I
Appendixes
VI and VII
Reference to cross
curricular language
objectives poster.
Students were
asked which other
subjects required
full answers.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 24
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
5.3.1 Planning text reinforcement and knowledge transfer on coherent sentences.
To tackle the problem of incoherent sentences, in my English lessons I gave
students a reading comprehension after each chapter of Boy that we read, and I insisted
on asking for full sentences. Sentences could not begin with “he/she” or “because”;
instead, they had to begin with the subject followed by the verb in the correct tense
(Appendixes I and VI). To help weaker students, I would ask all students to highlight
the tense in the question before they answered it. Students would then correct the
reading comprehension by checking their answers on the interactive white board. When
they looked at the board they would see that I too had highlighted the tense of the verb
in the question and answers.
I ask them to do this every year, however, this time when we corrected the
answers, I pointed to the cross curricular language objectives poster which was hung up
on their wall and pointed out that this was an objective for all content subjects in
English15
(see Appendix VII). Once again I would elicit if full sentences were necessary
in other subjects, and a few put up there hand to refer to History and Geography.
Observing that nobody had mentioned Science or Technology I asked if they were also
needed there too and one pupil replied that both the Science and Technology teacher
insisted on students writing full sentences.
5.4 Text difficulties and a lack of knowledge transfer on step by step details.
Going back to my sit down session with the science teacher, she had commented that
for many pupils, describing the process in detail, step by step, had been difficult. In fact
15 students had not numbered the process of the experiment but had attempted to write
15
The science teacher would also refer to the poster in her lesson, when they had to do writing tasks in
Science.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 25
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
a paragraph. 13 out of these 15 had only written two sentences to describe a process
which should have been described in at least six sentences. Only 4 students out of 30
described the process in six stages. Most of the pupils wrote three to four bullet points.
Below is a table explaining the measures which were implemented to reinforce
step by step details in their writing.
What text
knowledge
students
needed to
transfer
What material was used
to reinforce text
knowledge and how text
awareness was
reinforced
Where the material
is found
How text transfer
awareness was
made
An account of the Liz
Murray conference
Appendix VIII
Once the task was
Writing step
by step details
Boy, Mrs. Pratchett’s
Revenge: a chart
Appendix IX corrected I asked
which subjects
required step by
step details.
Autobiographical
anecdotes .
Appendixes: X, XI,
XII, XIII.
Appendix XIV
The majority of the reports lacked step by step details and like the work on
linkers it would take time to get weaker students to apply this knowledge to Science. I
decided to take the two evaluations to make students aware of the need to use linkers
and write detailed accounts before asking the Science teacher to assign a second report.
Weaker students would need to work on many different types of texts to fulfil the
objective I had set on writing step by step details. Consequently, whenever an
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 26
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
opportunity arose (which had not been foreseen in my yearly planner), I asked students
to write detailed accounts of non- fiction writing.
5.4.1 Implementing text reinforcement and knowledge transfer on step by step
details: the Liz Murray conference
One such opportunity to ask students to recount a detailed account occurred
when, 1 ESO A was invited to a conference, in the centre of Madrid. The talk was by
Liz Murray16
. The following lesson, students were asked to recount the most memorable
pieces of information (see Appendix VIII). They initially wrote two to three sentences.
When they put their pens down I asked them to write a further two, followed by a
further two and so on. The conference had lasted 90 minutes; 90 minutes of shocking
and motivating information about Liz Murray’s life. Yet, many had recorded little till
prompted to write more. I mentioned that in secondary school their writing had to be
detailed so that all teachers, not just their English teacher, could understand how much
they had understood about the information in different types of texts. As I have already
mentioned, these references to other content subjects in English is new in my teaching
practice.
5.4.2 Implementing text reinforcement and knowledge transfer on step by step
details: using Boy.
While reading Boy, a chapter entitled ‘Mrs. Pratchett’s Revenge’,17
enabled us to focus
on step by step detail. Once we had read the moment when the boys get caned, I asked
16
Liz Murray was invited, in March, by Madrid’s educational authorities to talk about her life. She
succeeded in going to Harvard, despite coming from a deprived family background.
17 Mrs. Pratchett was the horrid sweet shop owner. Previous to this chapter, Dahl and his friends had
placed a dead rat in one of Mrs. Pratchett’s sweet jars and scampered off quickly. In this chapter she goes
to the school to insist the Head punishes the culprits with a canning.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 27
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
them to draw a chart plotting how the tension rises, and to quote words or phrases which
highlight tension (see Appendix IX). I insisted on 7-10 quotes from the text which
suggested tension.
Before they drew their chart, I stood on one side of the room and asked them
how many steps it would take me, physically, to get to the other side of the room. Many
answered seven, ten, more than ten. I asked if I could make it in three steps. All agreed I
could not. So I pointed out that the same was true of all writing tasks they had to do. I
stated that whatever the subject, they had to write many steps and not just two or three. I
finally asked which subjects required ‘step by step’ details and they mentioned: Social
Science, Natural Science and Technology. When I asked what writing required this
detail, one pupil even referred to the Science report they had to write. Then, they began
to draw their ‘Tension Chart’ and look for quotes in pairs. Once the tension chart had
been finished I walked about and observed they had all provided a minimum of seven
quotes.
5.4.3 Implementing text reinforcement and knowledge transfer on step by step
details: anecdotal accounts
The anecdotal accounts were a way of not only reinforcing work on linkers but also to
emphasise the importance of details in writing that is meant to entertain. The first
anecdote I will explain was a written anecdotal account about a memorable incident
which happened to a parent. Once I had explained the writing rubric, provided a
vocabulary bank, worked on a writing model, and writing frame, 1º ESO A then had to
plan the first draft of their written account (see Appendix X). Having finished the first
draft, I asked them to focus on the paragraph describing the setting. I asked them if it
was a sensual description of the setting. All agreed it could be more sensual so they set
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 28
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
about brainstorming more sensual adjectives to describe the setting (see Appendix XI).
This led to another redraft.
In the next lesson, I asked students to focus on the paragraph where the tension
takes place. They then had to draw a storyboard illustrating the actions leading up to the
dénouement and check if the actions were coherent; they had to focus on not skipping
important actions (see Appendix XII). Having done this, I asked them to add more
details to evoke tension. Once this was completed, they had to redraft their written
account adding in the new information from their storyboard. Once they had come in
with their final draft (see Appendix XIII), I asked them to read the first and last version.
All, except one student, had improved their writing. Once they had finished I asked why
such details were important; the reply by a weak student was to get a higher mark. A
stronger student commented that writing more detailed meant they were answering the
question fully.
The second anecdote, an oral anecdote about their childhood- a pre-secondary
school moment- also reinforced tense consistency and the need for step by step detail.
What was interesting here was that when we were discussing the oral criteria it was the
students who prompted the need to evaluate details (see Appendix XIV). Students
followed the same procedure they had done in the writing task. Once everyone had
retold their anecdote I asked the class if they found the anecdotes interesting. On
affirming that they did, I asked why. Once they had given me the answer I was
expecting, I reminded them that this attention to detail was important in all subjects.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 29
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
5.5 Implementing text reinforcement and knowledge transfer: applying PCFA18
to
non-fiction texts
To help students become more aware that different texts require different discourse
features would span two evaluations as they had to come into contact with a wider
variety of texts than I had originally planned back in September. In the space of two
evaluations, we managed to work on four different types of text. The chart explains the
text types students worked on to become aware of text discourse features.
What text
knowledge students
needed to transfer
What material was used
to reinforce text
knowledge and how
text awareness was
reinforced
Where the
material is
found
How text transfer
awareness was
made
Knowing and A recipe Appendix XV I asked students in
labelling the
discourse features
in a written text
Transactional letters Appendixes
XVI & XVII
which subjects they
also wrote:
instructions, reports
A travel brochure Appendix
XVIII
And informative
texts.
A formal holiday report Appendixes
XIX & XX
18
I came up with a strategy aimed at helping students become more aware of the fact that different text
types require specific generic features and writing conventions. Once students had read the question
carefully they had to fill out the acronym PFCA.
P stands for the purpose of the text. Is it factual or opinion writing. Are they meant to report? Entertain?
Inform? Recount? Persuade? Instruct?
C stands for content. They have to underline the instructions in the questions and transfer them to this part
of their plan.
F stands for hr features in the text. Are there subheading? Pictures? Bullet points?
A stands for the audience they are writing for. Whom are they writing to? And whom are they meant to be
when they write? This part of the planning stage helped them to remember the text types they were meant
to be producing.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 30
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
5.5.1 Implementing text reinforcement and knowledge transfer: applying PCFA
to an instructional text
In our language lessons, when students were faced with a reading text, or a piece of
writing to do, they had to PCFA the text before they did anything else. Telling me orally
or writing PCFA on paper would prompt students to think about the text and its
discourse features. In the third evaluation, the class reader, Boy, lead to work on
instructional texts. We analysed the text features of a recipe by completing a PCFA on
the text (see Appendix XV). And this in turn, led to students using the model recipe to
work on their own recipe text and metaphorical recipe poems. I elicited why step by
step details were important in recipe writing and linked the importance of detail to
Science.
5.5.2 Implementing language and text reinforcement and knowledge transfer:
applying PCFA to transactional letters.
In this last evaluation, students also wrote non-fiction letters. We read a writing task
question carefully, together. Then we wrote out the PCFA and planned how to structure
the content being asked for in the rubric. Having planned, we wrote the letter as a class.
This whole class/teacher writing lesson was followed by another letter writing task done
in groups. Then, students carried out a final letter writing task individually (see
Appendixes XVI and XVII). I finished by asking them if they could use this planning
method in other subjects and many put up their hands. One of the answers was a
Science report another mentioned their Technology project.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 31
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
5.5.3 Implementing language and text reinforcement and knowledge transfer:
applying PCFA to a travel brochure and report writing
The third text pupils analysed was a holiday brochure, which they PCFAed some in
pairs others alone (see Appendix XVIII). We had practised completing a few PCFAs
and students participated actively in providing me with the answers.
Finally, pupils did a piece of report writing in our language lesson before doing
another Science report. The directed writing required students to tether key information
from the class reader and to incorporate it into a report.19
. In the autobiography, Dahl
speaks about his journey to his summer holiday destination and what his summer
holiday on a Norwegian island was like. Together, we wrote a report on the holiday
hotel Dahl stayed at. I explained that we were agents working for the travel company
Thomas Cook, and that our boss wanted us to evaluate if we should write a brochure
advertising the hotel. We began our report filling in PCFA. By this point students were
familiar with how to plan (see Appendix XIX). We then planned and wrote the report
together following the plan step by step (see Appendix XX).
19
Directed writing involves taking content information from one text/source and putting it in another type
of writing. For example, students read a chapter from a novel, and are then asked to tether certain
information to write a diary account, from the perspective of one of the characters in that chapter.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 32
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
5.6 Implementing the writing process used in English language lessons to a
Science writing report.
Below is a table which outlines the collaboration which took place between the Science
teacher and myself to scaffold the writing process of 1ESO A’s second Science report.
Material to share good teaching practice
in the writing process
Appendix
A writing model on the generic features of a report (which I gave
to the Science teacher).
XXI
A worksheet outlining the writing process in English (which I
explained and gave to the Science teacher)..
XXII
Science vocabulary bank worksheet for the second report. The
vocabulary on the left hand side was my contribution. The word
bank on the right hand side was the Science teacher’s word bank.
XXIII
The Science teachers report writing rubric XXIV
The Science teacher’s reflections on the writing process. XXV
Hence, to analyse if students’ were transferring writing skills from English to Science,
the Science teacher set another report task. Yet, before asking students to write the
report, the Science teacher and I sat down together, during a bilingual coordination
meeting, and I explained the writing process I followed in English. I handed her the type
of model writing example I gave students (see Appendix XXI) as a source of reference
to understand the type of text discourse they would be asked to reproduce. And I added
that I often did a whole class writing with them (time permitting). A whole class writing
task was a chance to show students a step by step explanation of how the writing
process should take place. I also explained that it was particularly useful in scaffolding
the learning process for weaker students who do not usually know how to fulfil all the
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 33
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
aspects of a writing task. The following day after our meeting I handed her a word bank
of words I thought would be useful for students to have when they came to writing their
second report. The Science teacher improved this word bank with more specific
scientific words (see Appendix XXIII).
Thus, before students handed in their report, they were given a rubric (see
Appendix XXIV) and detailed instructions on how to write their report. They were
provided with a vocabulary bank and they were asked to plan PCFA. Once the writing
process had finished, she wrote a summary on how the writing process had gone in class
(see Appendix XXV).
6 RESULTS.
6. Student awareness of the conventions of writing: a questionnaire
A questionnaire was handed out before the second report was written to find out if
students transfer knowledge on their use of language and text discourse functions to
other subjects. 30 out of 33 students handed in their questionnaire, which was filled in
anonymously.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 34
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
QUESTIONS REPLIES out of
30 questionnaires
1.1 Students who answered they use linkers in other
subjects taught in English.
77%
1.2 Students who affirmed they use at least one linker in:
Science
Geography & History
Technology
70%
60%
33%
2.1 Students who wrote full sentences in other subjects
taught in English.
100%
2.2 Students who replied always writing full sentences in:
Science
Geography & History
Technology
70%
40%
40%
3.1 Students who stated they write paragraphs for other
subjects.
93%
3.2 Students who replied they wrote paragraphs for the
following subjects:
Science
Geography & History
Technology
56%
70%
37%
4.1 Students who claimed they had to write step by step
details in other subjects taught in English?
70%
5.1 Types of writing students said they had done in Science.
Report
Explain (a process)
Instruct
Recount
Inform
30%
33%
7%
3%
17%
6.1 Types of writing students said they had done in
Geography & History:
Report
Explain
Instruct
Recount
Inform
23%
7%
3%
17%
37%
7.1 Types of writing done in Technology:
Report
Explain
Instruct
Recount
Inform
63%
7%
9%
0%
18%
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 35
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
6.1 Student awareness of the importance of knowledge transfer to other content
subjects: the 2nd
Science report on Mould.
Two evaluations later, students were given another Science report to do. Below
is a chart of the results from the first report, in the 1st evaluation, on water tension, and
the second report, in the 3rd
evaluation, on mould. The mark was awarded on how
detailed an explanation students had given on the procedures carried out to do the
experiment. There were also marks on the format. In other words, if it looks like a
report and if they had included all the subheading they were asked to do.
Hence, below are the results of the 25 students (out of 3320
) who handed both of
their reports in. They have been grouped according to their performance: 6 out of 25 had
not improved; 3 students remained in the same mark; 8 out of 24 students had improved
by one mark; and 8 students improved by two or more marks.
20
As 8 of the students had not handed in both reports; they had either handed in one or the other. One
student had not handed in either of the two. Thus, I could not compare their work. The two most
common reasons in 1 ESO A were: a lack of organization to do work in an allocated time and a lack of
understanding that coursework is equally important when evaluating a students work as a written exam.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 36
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
NAME 1st Science report 2nd Science report
NATALIA 6 5
ALBERTO 7 5
FERNANDO 7 5
LUCÍA.T. 7 6
AITOR 8 6
Students whose grade went down.
MARINA 10 9
Students whose grade remained the same.
SERGIO 4 4
Students whose grade went up one mark.
CRISTINA 7 7
Students whose grade went up two or more marks.
NURIA 7 7
PABLO 5 6
ÁLVARO 5 6
VICTORIA 5 6
PATRICIA 6 7
RODRIGO 6 7
RAQUEL 6 7
ENRIQUE 7 8
CRISTINA 8 9
PEDRO 2 8
ANA 4 7
MIGUEL 4 6
JORGE 4 6
ROCÍO 5 7
HELENA 6 8
DAVID 6 8
LORENA 7 9
Two types of detailed charts recording student’s first and second reports can be found in
Appendix XXVII and XXVIII. A summary of the results I gathered can be seen in the
following chart. The parts shaded in green are the parts that I had worked on the most
throughout the second and third evaluations in our English language lessons.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 37
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
Cross Curricular language &
discourse function analysis Average of the (*) Percentage of students that
1st report 2nd report improved went down no change
1.- Number of subheadings
written
4,96 5,48 68% 8% 24%
2.1.- Number of paragraphs
written
79% 88% 40% 36% 24%
2.2.Number of sentences in
paragraph:
One “Introduction” 1,44 2,52 68% 20% 12%
Three “Method” (step by step) 3,44 4,56 60% 16% 24%
Four “ Result” 1,06 3,92 68% 8% 24%
Five “Analysis”
Six “Conclusion” 0,76 2,48 80% 0% 20%
“New question”
2.3.- Number of bullet points
under paragraph two, subheading
“Materials”.
4,24 4,40 28% 28% 44%
3.- Number of linkers used 1,12 3,24 84% 8% 8%
4.- Number of drawings included 1,36 2,20 56% 20% 24%
(*) In the case of number of paragraphs the percentage is shown of the results obtained because in each report the
number of paragraphs students were asked to write was different
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 38
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
7. DISCUSSION
7. Interpreting the results on the questionnaire
The results gathered from the questionnaire illustrate that in the last two evaluations,
77% of students have been aware of the need to apply the use of linkers to other
subjects. What is more, 70% stated they have applied linkers to their writing in Science.
Science was the subject they replied they most used linkers in their writing. I found this
interesting as the Science teacher and I have made repeated references to each other’s
subjects and the need to use linkers in all writing tasks. And I believe this is reflected in
the fact that 70% stated they used linkers in Science.
All stated they were required to write in full sentences in English, which as you
can see from the English exercises in the appendix is the case. The next subject students
replied was Science (with 70%). I think the result of this to be the coordination and
cross references we have made orally to the importance of writing full sentences in our
lessons.
70% stated writing step by step details when they were asked to, but they were
unable to tell me exactly when they have had to do that. When I later asked them orally
to explain when they wrote details the replies were varied: “in Geography to explain the
weather”, “in Science to explain experiments”, “in Technology to explain about
engines”.
Fewer students were able to pinpoint the two types of writing they had done in
Science. 30% stated they had done report writing and 33% explanatory writing. I
believe the reason for this to be that they are still not familiar with all of the types of
writing they will have to do in secondary school. The fact is that before this
questionnaire the only report they had done in Science was back in the autumn. They
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 39
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
lack the experience of doing several examples of the same type of writing in different
subjects. This is why I think they find it difficult to recall and classify the different types
of writing they do. Considering that they barely practice different types of writing in
different subjects, I am surprised even 30% were able to recall that they wrote a report
six months previously. Hence, in my questionnaire the part asking them to recall the
types of writing they do in other subjects had the weakest answers.
One detail I found interesting was that no one mentioned doing persuasive
writing. This was reassuring as it isn’t a type of writing any teacher has asked them to
do this year and thus was an indication that they were not putting willy-nilly answers
down.
7.1 An analysis of the results on the second Science report
Once I had compared the second piece of writing to the first, what struck me initially
was the number of linkers I came across in context. 84% of the 25 students who had
handed in their second Science report had improved in the number of linkers they
incorporated to describe the procedures in their mould experiment. The linkers had
mostly been used under the sections on Method, where 22 out of 25 had used more
linkers than in their previous report, and in their paragraph entitled Results. The chart
shows that the average number of linkers used in the 1sr report was 1,12 and in the
second report the average had gone up to 3,24. As I have previously mentioned under
the section on The Study, when I worked on a piece of writing in English I often made
cross references to other subjects and the need to use linkers in their writing, so seeing
evidence of this was pleasing.
Another striking difference was that the number of sentences used to write the
report had increased. In the introduction 68% of the reports had more sentences
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 40
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
explaining the aims of the report. When they wrote their 1st report there was no written
rubric. However, when they were asked to write their 2nd
report they had a rubric
(Appendix XXIV) and followed it more carefully. 60% had increased the number of
sentences they had used to describe the method step by step. 68% had provided more
sentences to describe the results when allowing bread to develop into mould. Overall,
what struck me about these two paragraphs was that the sentences were nearly always
coherently written sentences and the sentences followed each other cohesively. Having
a rubric to follow and the continuous reminders during our English lessons to write
more detailed accounts helped 16 students to improve the quality of their reports (see
samples of students progress in appendixes: XXXIX, XXX, XXXI, XXXII).
What was significant was that in the first report, there were many students who
had (PNM) points not made – in other words sentences which made no sense. To be
more precise 6 students had 1 PNM in their report, 5 students had 2 PNM comments, 4
students had 3 PNM comments, 2 students has 4 PNM comments. However, in the
second report only 1 student had 1 PNM and 1 student had 2 PNM comments. Students
obviously improve as the academic year comes to an end but I believe these results are
due to the fact that they are asked to write a great deal in English and this thus has a
positive influence in their writing in other subjects.
All of the reports I read followed the generic features of a report more clearly.
They were more detailed and had included all of the subheading in the rubric and more
illustrations than in the 1st report. In fact the illustrations had improved by 56%. I
believe this could be due to the fact that they had had more practice writing reports in
English and in thinking about the features they had to include when they filled in their
PCFA plan.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 41
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
Despite the improvement in many of the students’ reports, six students had lower
grades than in their 1st report. When I asked these students why they thought their grade
was lower the replies were varied. One student felt being in this group was too difficult
and in the second and third evaluation she just lost interest in working harder to get
better marks. Two commented that by the end of the year they had to spend time
studying for end of year exams and could not spend as much time on the 2nd
report.
They also added that by the end of the year they did it just well enough to pass. Three
students have acquired the same mark, 4, 7, 7. The students who had obtained the 4/10
remarked that “they were not sure why they got that mark”, implying they didn’t really
understand what was being asked of them. Of the other two one replied that they had
other exams to prepare and just did not realize he had to write more than in the first
report.
8. CONCLUSION.
8. Summarising the issues involved in the ARP
My action research project focused on helping 1º ESO A students to transfer knowledge
they have acquired in English language writing tasks to their Science writing tasks. I
particularly wished to see if and how students transferred their language knowledge on
linkers, on writing complete sentences, and detailed texts to Science. What is more, I
wanted to see if and how they transferred their knowledge on text discourse functions.
My research required coordination meetings with the Science teacher to analyse
students’ first and second report writing tasks in Science. I also asked students to
answer a questionnaire so that I could find out how aware they were of the need to
transfer knowledge from one subject to another. Moreover, I spent most of the second
and third evaluation designing tasks in our English lessons to help pupils transfer the
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 42
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
knowledge needed to complete their writing tasks in other content subjects, especially
Science.
8.1 Limitations of the study
I came across two clear difficulties during this research project. As this was the first
time I had designed a questionnaire, I was over ambitious in the questions I asked such
young students. Therefore not all of the replies on texts were as useful as I would have
wanted them to be. What is more, though the questionnaire was anonymous, and given
to them to complete over the weekend, some of the replies seemed to be information
they thought I would have wanted to read, rather than truthful answers.
Secondly, finding time to coordinate with the Science teacher was difficult as we
did not coincide during our non teaching periods or break time duties. So when we did
eventually meet in order that I could explain the writing process we followed in English
lessons I did not explain the stages of peer correction clear enough. And there was no
time after that meeting to clarify doubts as she had to finish this task to begin end of
year exams. As the peer correcting process was new to her it did not go as well she had
hoped. So it was not as beneficial a learning experience as it could have been for
students.
8.2 My reflections on the experience.
Cross curricular work has proven to be difficult but not impossible. The Advanced
Curriculum requires English teachers to cover much content and yet we cannot rush
through this content as first year students need time to adapt to secondary school.
Bearing this in mind, I did not think it realistically possible or fair that it should be the
English language teacher who should reinforce language issues in her/his lesson so that
students improve their writing process in other content subjects. Having said this, the
ARP has enabled me to see that it does not have to be a case of the Science teacher says
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 43
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
they can’t construct passive sentences so let’s give them a photocopied exercise on the
passive from an English grammar book.
Not all students transfer knowledge naturally from one subject to another, and
many do need teachers to help them do this. Hence, incorporating language and text
discourse work into an English teacher’s scheme of work is essential if more students
are to perform to the best of their ability in secondary school. However, it takes a great
deal of time to do. I believe it is best done when English teachers have had several years
of experience in teaching English to bilingual students using a different methodological
approach to the TEFL approach most teachers use.
I found that transferring knowledge on text discourse functions was the most
difficult part as few content teachers are inclined to vary the writing tasks they set. Thus
making this last aim the hardest and longest to implement. In an ideal situation all
teachers in a bilingual team would have more time to coordinate and discuss how to
reinforce language and coordinate more writing tasks on a text type together to promote
knowledge transfer on texts. As well as having huge posters (in each classroom)
illustrating different text types and their corresponding vocabulary banks in a way that
appealed to visual learners.
If cross curricular coordination is to be successful, it requires content based
teachers willing to trust English teachers, willing to explain and share the work they do
with their students, and a readiness to leave one’s comfort zone and take risks; by this I
mean changing one’s methodological techniques. I was fortunate enough to work with a
Science teacher prepared to do all of this.
To conclude, the experience has been useful because it has enabled me to find
out what is being asked of students in other subjects taught in English. Knowing and
understanding better what is being asked of students means that I can better adapt my
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 44
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
lessons to cross curricular needs and to continue helping students transfer the
knowledge they have to other content subjects. .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, L. & Krathwohl, D. A (2001) Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and
Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: New York:
Longman
Chamot, A.U. & O’Malley, J.M. (1994) The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the
Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Longman.
Cummins,J. (1984) Bilingualism and special education: issues in assessment and
pedagogy. Clevedon, . Multilingual Matters.
Halbach, Ana. (in press) Same but Different. The Teaching of a Foreign Language in a
Bilingual Project.
Jacobs, H.H. 2010. Active Literacy Across the Curriculum. Larchmont: (NY): Eye on
Education.
Mohan, Bernard.A. (1990) LEP Students and the Intergration of Langauge and Content:
Knowledge Strucutres and Tasks.
Saville-Stoike, M (1984) What really matters in second language learning for academic
achievement? TESOL QUARTERLY, 18 (2) 199-219
Swain,M. (1988) Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize
second language learning. TESL Canada Journal Revue TESL du Canada 6 (1) 68-8
Zwiers, Jeff. 2004 Developing Academic Thinking Skills in Grades 6-12 : A Handbook
of Multiple Intelligence Activities. Newark: (DE): International Reading Association.
Barton, G. 2010. Stop calling it literacy. Available on line from
http://www.teachit.co.uk/custom_content/newsletters/newsletter_oct10.asp#1; last
accessed on Sunday, 19th
June 2011
A Teacher friendly conceptual map of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Available on-line
from http://www.kurwongbss.eq.edu.au/thinking/Bloom/blooms.htm;. last accessed on
Sunday, 19th
June 2011.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 45
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
APPENDIX I
REINFORCING THE USE OF LINKERS AND COHERENT SENTENCES:
2nd
Evaluation. Reading Comprehension questions on the class reader Boy, Tales of
Childhood.
The during and post reading worksheet
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 46
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
A student’s exercise book with the reading comprehension worksheet answered.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 47
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
APPENDIX II
2nd
Evaluation. Reinforcing the use of linkers. This worksheet is my own
autobiographical recount. After I recounted the incident, orally, students were
asked to activate vocabulary I used and we had studied and linkers – by putting
them in the gaps.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 48
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
The first recipe is an example of a student writing a recipe and explaining the steps using linkers. The second text is a metaphorical poem, which respects the discourse features of a recipe – which require step by step details and linkers.
APPENDIX III
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 49
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
APPENDIX IV
3rd
Evaluation. The following three writing tasks, imitating writing question 1, in
the First Certificate Exam, lend themselves well to reminding students to transfer
linkers to other text types they will have to write.
This p
lan w
as do
ne to
gether; I w
as able to
do
it
with
them
on
the in
teractive w
hiteb
oard
.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 50
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
APPENDIX V
A whole class model writing based on the information we wrote on the plan.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 51
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
APPENDIX VI
3rd
Evaluation. A worksheet on a reading comprehension on Boy. I reinforced sentence and tense coherence. Students are repetitively
asked to highlight the tense in the question to make sure the answer is in the correct tense. (answers must begin with subject + verb; verb
in the correct tense).
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 52
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
APPENDIX VII
These are the cross curricular language objectives the bilingual teachers agreed to focus on with students both in their written and oral
texts.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 53
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
APPENDIX VIII
STEP BY STEP EXPLANATION REINFORCEMENT THROUGH NON-
FICTION RECOUNTS AND THE CLASS READER BOY.
2nd
Evaluation. A Writing account of the Liz Murray Conference students
attended. This was an opportunity to describe step by step details.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 54
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
APPENDIX IX
2nd
Evaluation. The scene in Boy when the boys, including Dahl, are canned was an
ideal opportunity to get students to focus on the importance of detail to create
tension.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 55
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
APPNEDIX X
2nd
Evaluation. Student’s first account has little detail regarding the setting.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 56
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
APPENDIX XI
Planning and redrafting to add more sensual details to the setting.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 57
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
APPENDIX XII
2nd
Evaluation. Students were asked to draw a storyboard on an anecdotal account of a parent’s childhood experience , paying attention
to the details which would build up tension; and use linkers in context.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 58
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
APPENDIX XIII
The final draft with much more detail in the opening setting and the moment of
tension.
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 59
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
Cross Curricular Work on Language and Text Discourse 60
Máster Univ. en Enseñ. Inglés como Leng. Extranj. Espc. Teaching English TL
APPENDIX XIV
2nd
Evaluation. When students and I negotiated the oral assessment criteria (for
their autobiographical anecdote); a student suggested we needed to assess correct
use of past tenses and attention to detail, and the rest agreed so it was added.
Peer evaluation of the oral childhood anecdote. When students’ peer evaluated the
oral anecdotes they looked out for those aspects.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 61
APPENDIX XV
TYPES REINFORCEMENT WORK on IDENTIFYING & IMITATING DIFFERENT TEXT
3rd
Evaluation. Once we had finished reading a scene in Boy, when Dahl refers to memorable food he ate while on holiday, in Norway, students
were asked to fill in PCFA on this worksheet; )a non-fiction piece of writing) recipes. This led to metaphorical recipe poems.
.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 62
APPENDIX XVI
A group plan which led to a group letter writing activity.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 63
APPENDIX XVII
A plan done individually
before writing the letter.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 64
APPENDIX XVIII
3rd
Evaluation. This reading comprehension on brochures was another opportunity to
pay attention to text features and analyse the features of this text by filling in PCFA.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 65
APPENDIX XIX
3rd
Evaluation.
This was the last piece of
writing we did; in
coincided with the time
they had to write their
second Science report.
This group report writing
question, was a directed
writing task to take
information from Boy and
to place in another text
type.
Planning PCFA together
helped students to
remember the text features
they needed and to tether
details from the class
reader to the report
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 66
APPENDIX
XX
This was the
model group
report we
began
together after
planning and
they finished
in groups
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 67
APPENDIX XXI
SUPPORT MATERIAL FOR THE SCIENCE TEACHER TO USE WHEN GIVING THE 2nd
SCIENCE REPORT WRITING TASK.
2nd Evaluation; after viewing the 1st Science reports. I provided a writing model on how I plan helped to explain the writing process in English lessons.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 68
APPENDIX XXII
3rd
Evaluation. I gave the Science teacher an outline of the procedures I use when I ask
students to write longer pieces of work on English.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 69
MY SUGGESTED VOCABULARY BANK THE SCIENCE TEACHER’S IMPROVED VERSION TO HAND TO STUDENTS
This version helps students to model a scientists
way of expressing him/herself.
APPENDIX XXIII
Once the Science teacher explained the possible report she could set 1 ESOA, I gave a possible vocabulary bank to scaffold the writing of the report. She came
up with a better alternative…
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 70
APPENDIX XXIV
THE SCIENCE TEACHER’S WRITING RUBRIC; EXPLAINED TO STUDENTS.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 71
APPENDIX XXV
THE SCIENCE TEACHER’S REFLECTIONS ON THE WRITING PROCESS IN
HER SUBJECT.
The science teacher kindly wrote an evaluation of how the writing process went in class
and her model writing/ tips for students.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 72
APPENDIX XXVI
This was the questionnaire handed out to 1 ESO A to find out if they had been applying the language and text type knowledge learnt in English
language lessons to other content subjects taught in English.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 73
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 74
APPENDIX XXVII
A chart comparing each student’s language and text discourse performance in the first and second Science report writings.
Miguel Ana
Cross Curricular language & discourse
function analysis
1st Science Report 2
nd Science Report 1
st Science Report 2
nd Science Report
1 Number of subheadings 6/6 6/6 6/6 6/6
2.1 Number of paragraphs 3/4 6/6 2/4 6/6
2.2 Number of sentences in paragraph:
One “Introduction”
Three “Method” (step by step)
Four “ Result”
Five “Analysis”
Six “Conclusion”
“New question”
2
1
0
NA
1(PNM)
1(PNM)
2
5
5
2
2
NA
2
3
0
NA
1
1 (PNM)
3
8
5
3
3
NA
2.3 Number of bullet points under
paragraph two, subheading “Materials”.
3/5
5/5
4/5
5/5
3 Number of linkers 0 4 2 5
4 Number of drawings 2 2 2 2
PNM= Point not made/ the rubric has not been answered.
NA= Students were not asked to write about this subheading in the report.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 75
Victoria David
Cross Curricular language &
discourse function analysis
1st Science Report 2
nd Science Report 1
st Science Report 2
nd Science Report
1 Number of subheadings 5/6 6/6 5/6 6/6
2.1 Number of paragraphs 2/4 6/6 2/4 6/6
2.2 Number of sentences in paragraph:
One “Introduction”
Three “Method” (step by step)
Four “ Result”
Five “Analysis”
Six “Conclusion”
“New question”
1(PNM)
3
1 (PNM)
NA
1
1(PNM)
2
3
5
3 (PNM)
5
NA
1
2
0
NA
1
0
2
4
3
6
2
NA
2.3 Number of bullet points under
paragraph two, subheading
“Materials”.
4/5
5/5
4/5
4/5
3 Number of linkers 2 4 1 4
4 Number of drawings 2 1 0 1
PNM= Point not made/ the rubric has not been answered.
NA= Students were not asked to write about this subheading in the report.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 76
Lorena Helena
Cross Curricular language &
discourse function analysis
1st Science Report 2
nd Science Report 1
st Science Report 2
nd Science Report
1 Number of subheadings 4/6 7/6 6/6 6/6
2.1 Number of paragraphs 5/4 6/6 4/4 5/6
2.2 Number of sentences in paragraph:
One “Introduction”
Three “Method” (step by step)
Four “ Result”
Five “Analysis”
Six “Conclusion”
“New question”
1
2
1
NA
2
0
3
6
4
6
3
NA
2
3
1
NA
1 (PNM)
2(PNM)+ 1
3
4
5
5
2
NA
2.3 Number of bullet points under
paragraph two, subheading
“Materials”.
0/5
6/5
3/5
5/5
3 Number of linkers 1 5 2 3
4 Number of drawings 1 7 3 7
PNM= Point not made/ the rubric has not been answered.
NA= Students were not asked to write about this subheading in the report.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 77
Sergio Cristina
Cross Curricular language &
discourse function analysis
1st Science Report 2
nd Science Report 1
st Science Report 2
nd Science Report
1 Number of subheadings 4/6 5/6(not clear) 5/6 1/6
2.1 Number of paragraphs 3/4 4/6 4/4 5/6
2.2 Number of sentences in paragraph:
One “Introduction”
Three “Method” (step by step)
Four “ Result”
Five “Analysis”
Six “Conclusion”
“New question”
2
1(PNM)
1(PNM)
NA
1(PNM)
1(PNM)
3
3
0
0(PNM)
1(PNM)
NA
2
5
1
NA
1
1 (PNM)
1
3
1
1
2
NA
2.3 Number of bullet points under
paragraph two, subheading
“Materials”.
4/5
4/5
4/5
4/5
3 Number of linkers 0 1 0 3
4 Number of drawings 1 0 2 5
PNM= Point not made/ the rubric has not been answered.
NA= Students were not asked to write about this subheading in the report.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 78
Alberto Pablo
Cross Curricular language &
discourse function analysis
1st Science Report 2
nd Science Report 1
st Science Report 2
nd Science Report
1 Number of subheadings 6/6 0/6 5/6 6/6
2.1 Number of paragraphs 3/4 3/6 4/4 4/6
2.2 Number of sentences in paragraph:
One “Introduction”
Three “Method” (step by step)
Four “ Result”
Five “Analysis”
Six “Conclusion”
“New question”
2
2
0
NA
1
1
1
4
1
0
1
NA
1(PNM)
4
2
NA
1
0
3
4
1
1
3
NA
2.3 Number of bullet points under
paragraph two, subheading
“Materials”.
4/5
4/5
5/5
4/5
3 Number of linkers 0 3 4 5
4 Number of drawings 1 2 1 2
PNM= Point not made/ the rubric has not been answered.
NA= Students were not asked to write about this subheading in the report.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 79
Patricia Natalia
Cross Curricular language &
discourse function analysis
1st Science Report 2
nd Science Report 1
st Science Report 2
nd Science Report
1 Number of subheadings 5/6 6/6 5/6 6/6
2.1 Number of paragraphs 3/4 5/6 1/4 5/6
2.2 Number of sentences in paragraph:
One “Introduction”
Three “Method” (step by step)
Four “ Result”
Five “Analysis”
Six “Conclusion”
“New question”
3
6
1
NA
1
1
2
6
8
6
3
NA
1(PNM)
3
1
NA
1
0
3
4
3
2
2
NA
2.3 Number of bullet points under
paragraph two, subheading
“Materials”.
7/5
5/5
4/5
5/5
3 Number of linkers 0 5 1 4
4 Number of drawings 0 2 2 1
PNM= Point not made/ the rubric has not been answered.
NA= Students were not asked to write about this subheading in the report.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 80
Marina Rocío
Cross Curricular language &
discourse function analysis
1st Science Report 2
nd Science Report 1
st Science Report 2
nd Science Report
1 Number of subheadings 5/6 6/6 5/6 6/6
2.1 Number of paragraphs 4/4 6/6 2/4 4/6
2.2 Number of sentences in paragraph:
One “Introduction”
Three “Method” (step by step)
Four “ Result”
Five “Analysis”
Six “Conclusion”
“New question”
6
9
3
NA
3
1
3
6
9
6
5
NA
2(PNM)
3
2(PNM)
NA
0
1 (PNM)
2
5
9
4
2
NA
2.3 Number of bullet points under
paragraph two, subheading
“Materials”.
6/5
4/5
4/5
6/5
3 Number of linkers 0 3 2 4
4 Number of drawings 4 2 2 2
PNM= Point not made/ the rubric has not been answered.
NA= Students were not asked to write about this subheading in the report.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 81
Aitor Rodrigo
Cross Curricular language &
discourse function analysis
1st Science Report 2
nd Science Report 1
st Science Report 2
nd Science Report
1 Number of subheadings 5/6 6/6 7/6 7/6
2.1 Number of paragraphs 4/4 5/6 4/4 7/6
2.2 Number of sentences in paragraph:
One “Introduction”
Three “Method” (step by step)
Four “ Result”
Five “Analysis”
Six “Conclusion”
“New question”
2 (PNM)
4
2
NA
1
1(PNM)
4
3
2
2
1
NA
1 (PNM)
2 (PNM)
1
NA
1 (PNM)
1 (PNM)
2
4
6
4
5
NA
2.3 Number of bullet points under
paragraph two, subheading
“Materials”.
4/5
3/5
5/5
5/5
3 Number of linkers 4 3 2 4
4 Number of drawings 2 2 1 2
PNM= Point not made/ the rubric has not been answered.
NA= Students were not asked to write about this subheading in the report.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 82
Alvaro Cristina
Cross Curricular language &
discourse function analysis
1st Science Report 2
nd Science Report 1
st Science Report 2
nd Science Report
1 Number of subheadings 5/6 5/6 5/6 6/6
2.1 Number of paragraphs 4/4 4/6 4/4 6/6
2.2 Number of sentences in paragraph:
One “Introduction”
Three “Method” (step by step)
Four “ Result”
Five “Analysis”
Six “Conclusion”
“New question”
1(PNM)
4
2
NA
1(PNM)
0
2
5
2
1
1
NA
2
3
2
NA
1
1
2
4
5
4
4
NA
2.3 Number of bullet points under
paragraph two, subheading
“Materials”.
4/5
4/5
5/5
5/5
3 Number of linkers 0 2 0 3
4 Number of drawings 1 1 1 2
PNM= Point not made/ the rubric has not been answered.
NA= Students were not asked to write about this subheading in the report.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 83
Raquel Fernando
Cross Curricular language &
discourse function analysis
1st Science Report 2
nd Science Report 1
st Science Report 2
nd Science Report
1 Number of subheadings 5/6 6/6 5/6 6/6
2.1 Number of paragraphs 3/4 8/6 4/4 6/6
2.2 Number of sentences in paragraph:
One “Introduction”
Three “Method” (step by step)
Four “ Result”
Five “Analysis”
Six “Conclusion”
“New question”
2
2
1
NA
2(PNM)
1(PNM)
3
4
4
7
3
NA
3
5
2
NA
1
0
3
5
2
2 (PNM)
1
NA
2.3 Number of bullet points under
paragraph two, subheading
“Materials”.
4/5
4/5
5/5
4/5
3 Number of linkers 2 3 0 0
4 Number of drawings 1(PNM) 2 0 1
PNM= Point not made/ the rubric has not been answered.
NA= Students were not asked to write about this subheading in the report.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 84
Pedro Jorge
Cross Curricular language &
discourse function analysis
1st Science Report 2
nd Science Report 1
st Science Report 2
nd Science Report
1 Number of subheadings 4/6 6/6 0/6 4/6
2.1 Number of paragraphs 1/4 5/6 1/4 4/6
2.2 Number of sentences in paragraph:
One “Introduction”
Three “Method” (step by step)
Four “ Result”
Five “Analysis”
Six “Conclusion”
“New question”
1(PNM)
4
2
NA
0
1(PNM)
4
5
6
3
2
NA
0,5(PNM)
6
0,5
NA
0
1 (PNM)
3
4
0
0
2
NA
2.3 Number of bullet points under
paragraph two, subheading
“Materials”.
4/5
3/5
4/5
4/5
3 Number of linkers 1 0 1 4
4 Number of drawings 2 0 0 1
PNM= Point not made/ the rubric has not been answered.
NA= Students were not asked to write about this subheading in the report.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 85
Lucía Nuria
Cross Curricular language &
discourse function analysis
1st Science Report 2
nd Science Report 1
st Science Report 2
nd Science Report
1 Number of subheadings 5/6 6/6 5/6 6/6
2.1 Number of paragraphs 4/4 5/6 4/4 5/6
2.2 Number of sentences in paragraph:
One “Introduction”
Three “Method” (step by step)
Four “ Result”
Five “Analysis”
Six “Conclusion”
“New question”
1
2
1
NA
2
1(PNM)
2
5
4
3
4
NA
3
6
2
NA
1
1
2
6
2
2
1
NA
2.3 Number of bullet points under
paragraph two, subheading
“Materials”.
4/5
4/5
7/5
4/5
3 Number of linkers 2 4 0 0
4 Number of drawings 1 1 2 5
PNM= Point not made/ the rubric has not been answered.
NA= Students were not asked to write about this subheading in the report.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 86
Enrique
Cross Curricular language &
discourse function analysis
1st Science Report 2
nd Science Report
1 Number of subheadings 6/6 6/6
2.1 Number of paragraphs 4/4 6/6
2.2 Number of sentences in paragraph:
One “Introduction”
Three “Method” (step by step)
Four “ Result”
Five “Analysis”
Six “Conclusion”
“New question”
2
4
1
NA
0
1
3
4
6
2
3
NA
2.3 Number of bullet points under
paragraph two, subheading
“Materials”.
4/5
4/5
3 Number of linkers 1 5
4 Number of drawings 1 2
PNM= Point not made/ the rubric has not been answered.
NA= Students were not asked to write about this subheading in the report.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 87
APPENDIX XXVIII
Charts comparing the group’s performance on different aspects of the report writing.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 88
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 89
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 90
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 91
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 92
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 93
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 94
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 95
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 96
APPENDIX XXIX
Sample of a student’s 1st Science report, in the 1
st Evaluation; mark: 4/10
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 97
3rd
Evaluation. The same student. The 2nd
Science report. The student with a previous 4/10, now acquired a 6/10.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 98
APPENDIX XXX
Sample of a student’s 1st Science report, in the 1
st Evaluation; mark: 4/10
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 99
3rd
Evaluation. The same student. The 2nd
Science report. The student with a previous4 /10, now acquired a 7/10.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 100
APPENDIX XXXI
Sample of a student’s 1st Science report, in the 1
st Evaluation; mark: 6/10
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 101
3rd
Evaluation. The same student. The 2nd
Science report. The student with a previous 6/10, now acquired an 8/10.
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 102
APPENDIX XXXII
Sample of a student’s 1st Science report, in the 1
st Evaluation; mark: 7/10
Mª Raquel Rodríguez Vidal Action Research Project: Cross Curricular Work
Máster en Teaching English Through Literature 103
3rd
Evaluation. The same student. The 2nd
Science report. The student with a previous 7/10, now acquired a 9/10.