Research SeminarContent and Language Integrated

Learning

21st March 2012

Ana Llinares, Rachel Whittaker, Rachel Basse, Amaya Vázquez, Tom Morton (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) & Teppo Jakonen (Universidad de Jyväskylä)

Outline of the session17:15-17:30 Introduction to the session

17:30-18:30 THE UAM-CLIL PROJECT (Ana Llinares and Rachel Whittaker)

18:30-18:50 Assessment for Learning and Motivation in Bilingual Primary Classrooms (Rachel Basse, PhD student, UAM)

18:50-19:10 Form-learning in CLIL. A Study of Learner Errors in the Interlanguage of CLIL English Students (Amaya Vázquez, PhD student, UAM)

19:10-19:30 Coffee Break

19:30-19:50 Trajectories of learning in CLIL interaction (Teppo Jakonen, PhD student, U. Jyväskylä)

19:50-20:10 Classroom talk and teacher cognition in CLIL (Tom Morton)

20:10-20:30 Questions and final discussion

Phase I (2006-2010)

Ideational Function(+textual)

The UAM‐CLIL Project

Phase II (2011-2013)

Interpersonal Function

http://uam‐clil.com

Spoken and written language performanceLexico‐grammatical + Pragmatic/Discursive Features

Origins in Canadian immersion programs (1960s) CLIL in Europe

– 1+2 policy in 1995 white paper.– One of the priority actions of the European Commission for Education in its Action Plan designed for 2004‐2006.

– The European Centre for Modern Languages (Council of Europe) research programme for 2012‐2015 has the overarching title: Learning through languages.

CLIL in Spain– Only in Madrid more than 230 state schools in 2010 (Llinares & Dafouz 2010)

– In 2012‐2013 there will be 376 state schools only in Madrid

The role of CLIL in Europe

The language used in CLIL is not the language spoken locally. In Spain, the vast majority of university pre‐service teacher 

training courses do not include training for CLIL programmes. Use of abridged teaching materials in CLIL. In CLIL, the goal is not to reach an L2 proficiency similar to that 

of non‐native speakers?! Lasagabaster and Sierra, 2009

The role of CLIL in Europe

The foreign language (mainly English) is also taught as asubject.

Teachers are usually non‐native speakers.

Studies at macro level, mainly focusing on product 

Studies at micro level (classroom interaction and language of the disciplines), focusing on process and product

Previous CLIL research(pre‐university levels)

In Europe

•Marsh et al. 2001 ALPME•Langé et al. 2002 Tie-CLIL•Hansen et al. 2009 CLIL across contexts

In Spain

•García Mayo, Lasagabaster, Ruíz de Zarobe (REAL, UPV)•Lorenzo et al. (UPO) 2009•Pérez Vidal et al. (ALLENCAM, UPF)

In Europe

Dalton-Puffer 2007;Dalton-Puffer & Nikula 2006,...

In Spain

•Llinares, Whittaker et al. (UAM-CLIL)•Escobar et al (SI-CLIL, UAB)

Some results of this research:

– In general, students use appropriate language (especially lexis) to express content‐specific ideas.

– CLIL students use fewer phrases and more clauses to expresscircumstances when compared to L1 students.

– Development from year 1 to year 4 in the NG– CLIL students need to control the systems that signal given and new information.

Preliminary results on the interpersonal function– More interpersonal features in the regulative register– Limited repertoire in the students’ use of modality

UAM-CLIL Previous research on Ideational and Textual(Llinares & Whittaker 2007, 2009, 2010; Whittaker & Llinares 2009;

Llinares & Morton 2010; Whittaker, Llinares & McCabe 2011)

NG development: Research questions

How do the students introduce participants (people and entities) into the discourse when writing about History in English?

How do they keep track of participants once introduced?

Do we see development in their ability to introduce and track participants over the four years?

Do we see development in their ability to exploit the resources of the nominal group?

NG development: Results in control of cohesion + coherence

1. Fewer MISSES in presenting/presuming functions of nominal groups

2. greater use of presuming reference via nominal groups, instead of pronouns

3. increase in textual cohesion (via direct reference to something in the text)

4. decrease in use of exophoric reference (1st and 2nd person pronouns)

5. less reliance on reader’s shared topical knowledge (so knowledge telling)

NG development: structure

decrease in Type 1 NGs  decrease in pronoun use increase in Type 3 NGs slight increase in Type 4 NGs

INTER-CLIL project(2011-2013)

(Llinares, Whittaker, Morton, McCabe, Dalton-Puffer, Nikula; PhD students: Basse, Pascual & Vázquez)

Interpersonal functiona) Language used to evaluate the information presented- the content of the subject (Appraisal Theory)

b) Language used to interact and establish social relations in the classroom

A three-part framework for understanding the roles of language in CLIL

SUBJECT LITERACIES

CLASSROOM INTERACTION

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

GENRE REGISTER

ASSESSM

ENT

Instructional and regulative registers (focus) Communication systems (approach) Interaction patterns and scaffolding (action)

ASSESSM

ENT

Expressing ideational meanings (key concepts and understandings) Expressing interpersonal meanings (social relationships, attitudes) Expressing textual meanings (moving from more spoken to written forms of language)

Llinares A., Morton, T. & Whittaker, R. (2012) The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge: CUP

Theoretical Framework Inter‐clil project

SFL in education(Halliday & Hasan, Christie, Christie & Derewianka,Coffin, Martin, Schleppegrell)  

Sociocultural/Sociolinguistic approches to SLA 

(Vygotsky, Young, Mortimer & Scott)

The Interpersonal MacrofunctionAppraisal Theory(Martin, Martin & White)

Learner corporaICLE, Granger et al.,SPICLE, Neff et al,.UAMLESC, Romero & LlinaresUAM written, Martín & 

Whittaker

INTERPERSONAL LANGUAGE Appraisal Theory in SFL

Halliday’s Interpersonal Metafunction (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004), developed by Martin and White in Appraisal Theory (eg. Martin 2000, Martin & White 2005).

What is Appraisal?The study of the linguistic resources by which speakers or writers express evaluation, attitude and emotion.

Types of Appraisal: Attitude, Engagement and Graduation

Attitude is concerned with feelings, either construing emotional reactions (affect), assessing people’s behaviour (judgement) or valuing things (appreciation).

Engagement has to do with sourcing attitudes and the play of voices around opinions in discourse.

Graduation has to do with grading phenomena, either through softening or sharpening (focus) or through intensification or amount (force).

Example of Science Group Work (grade 8; 2º ESO)S2: No, it can't be hereS1: Yes, why? ((unintelligible)) are joined together. And.. NO3S2: And where do you place the O3?S1: Maybe like.. Something like that? ((S2 laughs)) We don’t know the.. maybe..S3: ((unintelligible)) hereS2: It's a balanced already because we know where.. where goes everything. Where to place this? Stir itS1: Why doesn’t it do? ((S1 stands up to check the experiment))S2: Is brokenS3: I think that now we can take it out because they.. they have a different.. or less time.. ((S1 keeps on stirring for some more seconds))S3: Now it's dissolved?S2: Stir a bit moreS3: Now it's perfectS2: Maybe you can

Attitude: Judgement

Graduation: focus

Engagement Graduation: force

Attitude: Appreciation

Research questions 1. Do secondary school CLIL students use the L2 interpersonally, both

academically and socially? What type of interpersonal language is used?

2. Which difficulties do CLIL students show in their expression of the interpersonal function in English, in relation to the demands of the register (spoken/written), the genre (subjects) and the specific classroom activity (group work/whole-class discussions)?

3. Are there any differences in the use of the interpersonal function between CLIL classrooms from different European contexts and with parallel content classrooms taught in the students’ mother tongue (Spanish)?

4. Do the frequency and variety of interpersonal features in CLIL students’ written and spoken production persist in the long run, two years after the end of the CLIL programme?

6. How does this compare with the use of interpersonal language in English by students from non-CLIL contexts?

Data CONTEXTS

– Secondary School CLIL in Madrid (ESO)– Secondary School EFL  in Madrid (Bachillerato)– Secondary School L1 in Madrid (Content taught in the L1)– Secondary School CLIL in Vienna– Secondary School CLIL in Jÿvaskÿla

REGISTERS– Spoken and Written

SUBJECTS– Geography, History, Biology, Physics and Technology

TASKS– Whole‐class discussions– Essays– Group work activities– Project presentations

ENGAGEMENT

ATTITUDE

GRADUATION

monogloss

heterogloss

AFFECT...

JUDGEMENT...

APPRECIATION...

FORCE...

FOCUS...

PROJECTION...

MODALITY...

CONCESSION...

Analysis: Academic‐Interpersonal

Martin & Rose 2003: 54

Appraisal Systems

•Units of analysis: Lexico‐grammatical and pragmatic features

Personal deixis, Lexis, Modality, Projection/attribution of sources, Concession (SFL), academic functions (Dalton-Puffer, 2007)

•Tools: UAM CorpusTool, Wordsmith Tools, SPSS

• Units of analysis: Pragmatic features

Communicative functions/Speech acts (Llinares 2006)

Patterns of Interaction (Nikula 2007, Mortimer & Scott 2003, …)

Politeness (Sobhy, PhD in progress)

• Tools: UAM CorpusTool, Wordsmith Tools, CA methods, SPSS

Analysis: Social/Educational‐Interpersonal

Corpus: Stage 1 of the analysis(Spoken data-Learners)

Spain Austria FinlandWhole-class discussion

1 History1 Biology

1 Geography1 Physics

1 Biology1 Physics

Group work 1 History1 Chemistry

1 History1 History

1 History1 Physics

Coding

UAM Corpus Tool by Mick O’DonnellDownloadable from http://www.wagsoft.com

Summary of results

Cross-sectional/SpokenLearners’ evaluative language

I Activity type

More appraisal in group work than in whole-class discussions.

However, breaking this down by the different types of appraisal and how they interact with subject area, and national contexts, engagement is more frequent in group work than in whole-class discussions.

This means that in group work the students either acknowledge or ignore different points of view and negotiate a space for their own positions.

II Subject area

Surprisingly, more appraisal overall in the physical sciences than in the social sciences.

However, a closer look at the data shows that the appraisal area of engagement was playing an important role in science, as well as epistemic self-judgement (in terms of what students deemed themselves to know).

On the other hand, attitude seems to be more frequent in the social sciences, where students seem to be showing more emotional reactions towards people and things.

Summary of results

Cross-sectional/SpokenLearners’ evaluative language

Summary of results

Cross-sectional/SpokenLearners’ evaluative language

III National Context The Spanish context showed more appraisal overall.

The Spanish group work sessions were particularly rich in appraisal phenomena.

The Austrian context stood out for its low levels of appraisal overall, and according to activity type and subject area. Much of this appraisal was done in German.

The Finnish data had more appraisal in whole-class discussions than in the other two contexts.

Corpus: Stage 1 of the analysis(Spoken data-Teachers)

Spain Austria FinlandWhole-class discussion

1 History1 Biology

1 Geography1 Physics

1 Biology1 Physics

Coding

UAM Corpus Tool by Mick O’DonnellDownloadable from http://www.wagsoft.com

Summary of results

Cross-sectional/SpokenTeachers’ evaluative language in whole-class discussions

(to be presented at AAAL conference in Boston, US)

Engagement is the most frequent type

– Lower entertain (engagement) (“might”, “possibly”) in science (epistemic stance).

– Smaller groups + students with higher interactional competence in the L2 more instances of engagement/counter (“but”, “however, etc..) in teacher talk (Finnish data more dialogic).

In sessions with a strong IRF pattern, teachers’ very often evaluate the adequacy of the students’ response (Attitude/judgement)

-Combination of SFL, CA and corpus linguistics approaches

Corpus: Stage 1 of the analysis(Written data)

16 students’ essays in 4 grades (grade 7-10)

Approx. 11,000 words

CodingUAM Corpus Tool by Mick O’DonnellDownloadable from http://www.wagsoft.com

Summary of resultslongitudinal/written

Aim: To discover whether and to what extent students' texts show development in the use of APPRAISALresources over the four years of secondary schooling.

Questions:1. Are the uses appropriate for the genre of the texts?2. Do the linguistic features show differences in

a) later work by the students b) essays which are rated ‘good’ or ‘poor’?

3. Can the students construct the "voices" of the secondary school historian?

Appraisal in written texts: a longitudinal study

• Written corpus = 32,000 words • Corpus for this study = Written texts by the same 16

students once a year over 4 years secondary education in a history class

• Total 11,000 words• Appraisal analysis• Holistic evaluation by expert

APPRAISAL resources will be called on differently depending on the generic demands

• Biography (recording genre) will entail value judgements of personal qualities [judgement: social esteem and social sanction]

• Historical recounts (recording genre) will more likely evaluate the significance of events. [social valuation]

• Explanations will include assessment of the importance of the causes/outcomes of an event [social valuation]

• Arguments will involve resources for persuading and rebutting [engagement]

APPRAISAL realizations in higher & lower rated essays

POORERSOCIAL ESTEEMPhilip II, he was weakhe was very powerful

SOCIAL SANCTIONhe was a bad monarchhe was arrogantthey were a little bit

unfair with the indigenous civilitatios

GOODSOCIAL ESTEEMhe conquered the New Lands (the Americas)

and created…He achieved some Years of Triumph …SOCIAL SANCTION

The household helps poor people by giving them food, places to sleep

rich people contribute economicaly by giving aids and donations to poor people.

SOCIAL SANCTION & SOCIAL VALUATION

they brought a new religion, a new language, a new technology that was useful

Research questions: some answers

1. The choices from the APPRAISAL systems seem appropriate for the generic demands of the prompts

2. There are differences in terms of linguistic resources used to realize APPRAISAL between texts which are rated ‘good’ and ‘poor’

– Better texts show greater variety of APPRAISAL SYSTEMS– Better texts make less (and different) use of Graduation.

3. Students are learning to construct the "voices" of the secondary school historian in English, seen in the development in the use of APPRAISAL resources (move to recorder voice by Year 4)

Further stages in the project• Dig deeper into the relationship between appraisal types and the type of 

activity, looking at both language use and classroom cultures (combing SFL and CA).

• Analyse the language used for specific types of appraisal.

• Compare the same students’ use of appraisal in spoken and written texts.

• Compare the students’ evaluative performance with that of parallel classes in the L1.

• Study CLIL students’ development in the use of interpersonal resources (from 7th to 12th grade).

• Compare CLIL and EFL students’ use of interpersonal resources in writing.

TASK

Having listened to different research studies using different theoretical/methodological models, reflect on what each model can offer to our understanding of learning a language through content (1 page / 300 words +/-)