Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

European Journal of Applied Linguistics

Founded by Knapp, Karlfried

Editor-in-Chief: Bührig, Kristin / ten Thije, Jan D.


Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca: Classe A

Online
ISSN
2192-953X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Pluriliteracies Teaching for Learning: conceptualizing progression for deeper learning in literacies development

Oliver Meyer
  • Corresponding author
  • Universitätsprofessor Universities of MainzFachdidaktik des EnglischenJakob-Welder-Weg 18D-55128 MainzGermany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Do Coyle
  • University of AberdeenSixth Century Chair in Learning InnovationMacRobert Building, King's CollegeAberdeen, AB24 5UAUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-08-19 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0006

Abstract

Pluriliteracies Teaching for Learning (PTL) constitutes a relatively recent development in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). This approach has been developed by a group of international experts (The Graz Group) in order to model and provide pathways for deeper learning across languages, disciplines and cultures by focusing on the development of disciplinary or subject specific literacies. We argue that deeper learning – defined as the successful internalization of conceptual content knowledge and the automatization of subject specific procedures, skills and strategies – rests on learners’ acquisition of disciplinary literacies. We posit that disciplinary literacies in turn only develop when learners actively engage in subject specific ways of constructing knowledge and when they are taught how to language their understanding appropriately and in an increasingly complex and subject appropriate manner. In this article, we will describe the theoretical underpinnings that inform our model to show how an understanding of the two key processes of deeper learning will aid to the conceptualization of learner progression in pluriliteracies development.

Zusammenfassung

Pluriliterales Lernen ist ein neuer didaktisch-methodischer Ansatz für den bilingualen Unterricht. Dieses Konzept wurde von einer internationalen Expertengruppe entwickelt (Graz Group), um vertiefte Lernprozesse über Sprachen- und Fächergrenzen hinweg zu initiieren. Vertieftes Lernen beinhaltet sowohl die Internalisierung von Konzeptwissen als auch die Automatisierung von Fertigkeiten und Strategien und führt zur Entwicklung von Sachfachliteralität. Die Entwicklung von Sachfachliteralität ist an fachspezifische Methoden der Wissenskonstruktion und -kommunikation gekoppelt. Pluriliterales Lernen fördert die Sachfachliteralität in mehreren Sprachen und befähigt Lerner, ihr Wissen adäquat zu versprachlichen und sich an zunehmend komplexen Fachdiskursen erfolgreich zu beteiligen. In diesem Artikel sollen die Prozesse und Theorien, die unserem Ansatz zugrunde liegen, vorgestellt und näher erläutert werden um zu zeigen, wie sich sachfachliche Lernprogressionen denken, entwickeln und erforschen lassen.

References

  • Anderson, John R. 1983. A Spreading Activation Theory of Memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22. 261–295.Google Scholar

  • Anderson, John R., Albert Corbett & Ray Pelletier. 1995. Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned. Journal of Learning Sciences 4. 167–207.Google Scholar

  • Azkarai, Agurtzane & Ainara Imaz Agirre. 2015. Negotiation of Meaning Strategies in Child EFL Mainstream and CLIL Settings. TESOL Quarterly. 1–27.Google Scholar

  • Beacco, Jean-Claude, Mike Fleming, Francis Goullier, Eike Thürmann & Helmut Vollmer. 2015. The Language Dimension in all Subjects. A Handbook for Curriculum Development and Teacher Training. Council of Europe: www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Handbook-Scol_final_EN.pdf

  • Brown, Nathaniel J. S. & Mark Wilson. 2011. A Model of Cognition: The Missing Cornerstone of Assessment. Educational Psychology Review 23(2). 221–234. Google Scholar

  • Cazden, Courtney, Bill Cope, Norman Fairclough, James Gee, Mary Kalantzis, Gunther Kress, Allan Luke, Carmen Luke, Sarah Michaels & Martin Nakata (New London Group). 1996. A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Educational Review 66(1). 60–92.Google Scholar

  • Coetzee-Lachmann, Debbie. 2007. Assessment of Subject-Specific Task Performance of Bilingual Geography Learners: Analysing Aspects of Subject-Specific Written Discourse. Osnabrück: Universität Osnabrück dissertation. Google Scholar

  • Coffin, Caroline. 2006. Mapping Subject-Specific Literacies. National Association for Language Development in the Curriculum Quarterly 3(3). 13–26. Google Scholar

  • Coffin, Caroline & Jim Donohue. 2014. A Language as Social Semiotic-Based Approach to Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (Language Learning Monograph Series). Mary J. Schleppegrell (ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Cohen, Andrew. D. & Ernesto Macaro. 2007. Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of Research and Practice. London: Oxford UP.Google Scholar

  • Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). 1997. Common Framework of Science Learning Outcomes K to 12: Pan-Canadian Protocol for Collaboration on School Curriculum for Use by Curriculum Developers. Toronto, ON.Google Scholar

  • Dager, Joseph. 2013. The Focus Question. Customer Think, blogpost on Bob Gowin’s Knowledge Vee: http://customerthink.com/the-focus-question/

  • Dalton‐Puffer, Christiane. 2007. Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2014. A Construct of Cognitive Discourse Functions for Conceptualising Content-Language Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(2). 216–253. Google Scholar

  • Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2015. Cognitive Discourse Functions: combining content and language perspectives for CLIL teacher development. Conference Presentation. CLIL Colloquium: Integrating Content and language for teacher development in bilingual/multilingual setting: From research to practice. Madrid: 10.06.2015.Google Scholar

  • DeKeyser, Robert. 2007. Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dobbs, Christina. L., Jacy Ippolito & Megin Charner-Laird. 2016. Layering Intermediate and Disciplinary Literacy Work: Lessons Learned From a Secondary Social Studies Teacher Team. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 60(2). 131–139.Google Scholar

  • Emergent Cognition Project (2016): Emergence of Mind. https://eoaproject.wordpress.com/category/sections/emergent-systems-framework/levels-of-interaction/

  • Emergent Cognition Project (2016): Emergent Systems Perspective. https://eoaproject.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/emergent-systems-perspective-4-of-5/

  • Fang, Zhihui & Suzanne Coatoam. 2013. Disciplinary Literacy: What You Want to Know About it. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 56(8). 627–632. Google Scholar

  • García, Ofelia, Lesley Bartlett & Jo Anne Kleifgen. 2007. From Biliteracy to Pluriliteracies. In P. Auer & Li Wei (eds.), Handbook of Applied Linguistics, vol. 5: Multilingualism, 207–228. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Gillis, Victoria. 2014. Disciplinary Literacy: Adapt Not Adopt. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 57(8). 614–623. Google Scholar

  • Hassen, Xavière, Ernesto Macaro, Deborah Mason, Gail Nye, Pete Smith & Robert Vanderplank. 2005. Strategy Training in Language Learning – A Systematic Review of Available Research. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit. University of London: Institute of Education. Google Scholar

  • Hornberger, Nancy H. 2003. Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research and Practice in Multilingual Settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Jackson, Yvette. 2011. The Pedagogy of Confidence – Inspiring High Intellectual Performance in Urban Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

  • Jaekel, Nils. 2015. Use and Impact of Language Learning Strategies on Language Proficiency: Investigating the Impact of Individual Difference Variables and Participation in CLIL Streams. Bochum: Ruhr-Universität Bochum dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Jetton, Tamara L. & Cynthia Shanahan (eds.). 2012. Adolescent Literacy in the Academic Disciplines: General Principles and Practical Strategies. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar

  • Kelso, J. A. Scott. 1995. Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior (Complex Adaptive Systems). Cambridge: MIT UP.Google Scholar

  • Lantolf, James P. & Matthew E. Poehner. 2014. Sociocultural Theory and the Pedagogical Imperative in L2 Education: Vygotskian Praxis and the Research/Practice Divide. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Llinares, Ana, Tom Morton & Rachel Whittaker. 2012. The Roles of Languages in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lorenzo, Francisco, Sonia Casal & Pat Moore. 2010. The Effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning in European Education: Key Findings from the Andalusian Bilingual Sections Evaluation Project. Applied Linguistics 31(3). 418–442. Google Scholar

  • Lyster, Roy. 2007. Learning and Teaching Languages through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Macaro, Ernesto. 2006. Strategies for Language Learning and for Language Use: Revising the Theoretical Framework. The Modern Language Journal 90(3). 320–337. Google Scholar

  • Macaro, Ernesto (ed.). 2010. The Continuum Companion to Second Language Acquisition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Meyer, Oliver. 2013. Zum Zusammenhang von fertigkeitsorientierten Lernstrategien und sprachlicher Performanz am Beispiel der Bildbeschreibung im erweiterten Englischunterricht. Eichstätt: Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt dissertation (unpublished).Google Scholar

  • Meyer, Oliver, Do Coyle, Ana Halbach, Kevin Schuck & Teresa Ting. 2015. A Pluriliteracies Approach to Content and Language Integrated Learning – Mapping Learner Progressions in Knowledge Construction and Meaning-Making. Language, Culture, and Curriculum 28(1). 41–57.Google Scholar

  • Meyer, Oliver, Do Coyle & Ana Halbach. 2015. A Pluriliteracies Approach to Teaching for Learning – Putting a Pluriliteracies Approach into Practice. European Centre for Modern Languages:http://pluriliteracies.ecml.at/Portals/4/publications/pluriliteracies-Putting-a-pluriliteracies-approach-into-practice.pdf

  • Mohan, Bernard, Constant Leung & Tammy Slater. 2010. Assessing Language and Content: A Functional Perspective. In Amos Paran & Lies Sercu (eds.), Testing the Untestable in Language Education, 217–240. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • National Research Council. 2012. Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, James W. Pellegrino and Margaret L. Hilton, (eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

  • Novak, Joseph D. 2002. Meaningful Learning: The Essential Factor for Conceptual Change in Limited or Inappropriate Propositional Hierarchies Leading to Empowerment of Learners. Science Education 86. 548–571. Google Scholar

  • Polias, John. 2016. Apprenticing Students into Science: Doing, Talking, and Writing Scientifically. Melbourne: Lexis Education.Google Scholar

  • Rose, David & Jim Martin. 2012. Learning to Write, Reading to Learn: Genre, Knowledge and Pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar

  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda & Jasone Cenoz. 2015. Way Forward in the Twenty-First Century in Content-Based Instruction: Moving Towards Integration. Language, Culture and Curriculum 28(1). 90–96. Google Scholar

  • Rumlich, D. (2016). Evaluating bilingual education in Germany: CLIL students' general English proficiency, EFL self-concept and interest. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar

  • Schleppegrell, Mary J., Stacey Greer & Sarah Taylor. 2008. Literacy in History: Language and Meaning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 31(2). 174–187.Google Scholar

  • Schmenk, Barbara. 2009. Kulturelle und soziale Aspekte von Lernstrategien und individuellem Strategiegebrauch. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 38. 70–88.Google Scholar

  • Segalowitz, Norman. 2003. Automaticity and Second Languages. In Catherine J. Doughty & Michael H. Long (eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 368–408. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Shanahan, Timothy & Cynthia Shanahan. 2008. Teaching Disciplinary Literacy to Adolescents: Rethinking Content-Area Literacy. Harvard Educational Review 78(1). 40–59.Google Scholar

  • Shanahan, Timothy & Cynthia Shanahan. 2012. What Is Disciplinary Literacy and Why Does It Matter? Topics in Language Disorders 32(1). 7–18.Google Scholar

  • Skehan, Peter. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. London: Oxford UP.Google Scholar

  • Swain, Merrill. 2006. Languaging, Agency and Collaboration in Advanced Language Proficiency. In Heidi Byrnes (ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, 95–108. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Veel, Robert. 1997. Learning How to Mean – Scientifically Speaking: Apprenticeship into Scientific Discourse in the Secondary School. In Frances Christie & James R. Martin (eds.), Genre and Institutions. Social Processes in the Workplace and School, 161–195. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Vollmer, Helmut Johannes. 2008. Constructing Tasks for Content and Language Integrated Learning and Assessment. In Odile Eckerth & Sabine Siekmann (eds.), Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching – Theoretical, Methodological, and Pedagogical Perspectives (Duisburger Arbeiten zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft), 227–290. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Weinburgh, Molly H. & Cecelia Silva. 2012. An Instructional Theory for English Language Learners: The 5R Model for Enhancing Academic Language Development in Inquiry-Based Science. In Beverly J. Irby, Genevieve Brown, Rafael Lara-Alecio (eds.) & Jonice Koch (Sect. ed.), Handbook of Educational Theories, 293–304. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar

  • Wolff, Dieter. 2004. Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht und Lernerautonomie. In Werner Altmann (ed.), Bilingualer Unterricht in Deutschland und Spanien: Aktuelle Situation und methodische Ansätze, 112–128. Berlin: Walter Frey.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-08-19

Published in Print: 2017-09-05


Citation Information: European Journal of Applied Linguistics, Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages 199–222, ISSN (Online) 2192-953X, ISSN (Print) 2192-9521, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0006.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Karina Rose Mahan, Lisbeth M. Brevik, and Marianne Ødegaard
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2018, Page 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in