Microsoft Word - EJ 149_Breeze & Jimenez-Villarejo pp. 21-36_final.docx EuroAmerican  Journal  of  Applied  Linguistics  and  Languages   Volume  6,  Issue  1,  August  2019,  21-­‐36   ISSN  2376-­‐905X   DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.10.149     www.e-­‐journall.org     ©  Breeze  2019.  This  work  is  licensed  under  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0  International  License.     Building  literacies  in  secondary  school  history:     The  specific  contribution  of  academic  writing  support       RUTH  BREEZE  &  PILAR  GERNS  JIMÉNEZ-­‐VILLAREJO   Universidad  de  Navarra       Received  28  June  2018;  received  in  revised  form  4  January  2019;  accepted  6  January  2019 ABSTRACT EN This paper considers the specific role and effect of academic writing support in a secondary school Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) context. After discussing the potential place for academic writing support in the ongoing process of fostering disciplinary literacy, we report on an experimental study in which 45 Spanish secondary school students received a short academic writing module as part of their history course. The descriptions/explanations written in their post-tests were generally found to be more complete, with more explicit discourse markers and with better textual organization than the pre-tests. We discuss the implications of this for students’ progress towards disciplinary literacy. Key words: CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING (CLIL), BILINGUAL EDUCATION, DISCIPLINARY LITERACY, L2 WRITING, COGNITIVE DISCOURSE FUNCTIONS. ES Este estudio considera el papel específico y el efecto del apoyo a la escritura académica en un contexto AICLE de escuela secundaria. Después de analizar el lugar potencial que el apoyo a la escritura académica podría tener en el proceso continuo de promoción de la literacidad disciplinar, se presentan los resultados de un estudio experimental en el que 45 estudiantes españoles de la escuela secundaria recibieron un breve módulo de escritura académica como parte de su curso de historia. Las descripciones / explicaciones escritas en sus post-tests se consideraron generalmente más completas, con marcadores de discurso más explícitos y con una mejor organización textual que las pre-tests. Finalmente, se discuten las implicaciones de estos resultados para el desarrollo de la literacidad disciplinar por parte de los estudiantes. Palabras clave: APRENDIZAJE INTEGRADO DE CONTENIDO Y LENGUA EXTRANJERA (AICLE) EDUCACIÓN BILINGÜE, LITERACIDAD DISCIPLINAR, ESCRITURA EN LA L2, FUNCIONES COGNITIVAS DEL DISCURSO. IT Questo articolo esamina il ruolo specifico del sostegno alla scrittura accademica e il suo effetto in un contesto CLIL della scuola secondaria. Dopo aver discusso il posto che potenzialmente potrebbe occupare il sostegno alla scrittura accademica all’interno del continuo processo di promozione dell'alfabetizzazione disciplinare, riportiamo uno studio sperimentale in cui 45 studenti spagnoli di scuola secondaria hanno seguito un breve modulo di scrittura accademica come parte del loro corso di storia. Le descrizioni / spiegazioni scritte nei loro post-test sono risultate generalmente più complete, con marcatori di discorso più espliciti e con una migliore organizzazione testuale rispetto ai pre-test. Ne discutiamo, quindi, gli effetti sul progresso degli studenti nel processo di alfabetizzazione disciplinare. Parole chiave: APPRENDIMENTO INTEGRATO DI LINGUA E CONTENUTO (CLIL), ISTRUZIONE BILINGUE, ALFABETIZZAZIONE DISCIPLINARE, SCRITTURA IN L2, FUNZIONI COGNITIVE DEL DISCORSO               * Ruth  Breeze,    Universidad  de  Navarra                  rbreeze@unav.es   BREEZE  &  GERNS  JIMÉNEZ-­‐VILLAREJOS   E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 22 1.  Introduction   One  of  the  most  significant  developments  in  European  education  over  the  last  twenty  years  has  been   the  vast  increase  in  the  teaching  of  school  subjects  in  English,  even  in  European  countries  where  there  is  no   historical   connection   with   the   English-­‐speaking   world   (Pérez   Cañado,   2018a).   The   teaching   of   curricular   contents  through  the  medium  of  English  in  these  contexts  has  been  mainly  understood  through  the  paradigm   of   Content   and   Language   Integrated   Learning   (CLIL)   (Marsh,   Pérez   Cañado,   &   Ráez   Padilla,   2015).   CLIL   is   related   to   other   models   of   content   teaching   through   English,   with   some   differences   (Ball,   Kelly,   &   Clegg,   2015).  For  example,  CLIL  overlaps  somewhat  with  English  Medium  Instruction  (EMI)  but  differs  in  that  CLIL   opens  up  the  issue  of  explicit  language  learning,  positing  this  as  being  in  some  sense  integrated  with  content   learning   in   the   course   design   and   delivery.   CLIL   can   also   be   usefully   compared   with   immersion   models   (Cenoz,  Genesee,  &  Gorter,  2014).  It   is  generally  understood  to  differ  from  other  models  in  that  it   is  not  full   time  and  is  not  conceptualized  as  purely  acquisition-­‐driven,  however  it  provides  scope  for  language  support   within   content   courses   (Ball   et   al.,   2015).   In   fact,   in   current   European   school   contexts,   content   courses   in   English   are   not   only   designed   to   integrate   some   language   support   but   are   also   usually   combined   with   conventional  language  courses  graded  by  level.     The   rapid   spread   of   CLIL   has  meant   that   our   understanding   of   the   paradigm   itself   has   developed   alongside  its  expanding  practice.  As  might  be  expected  with  a  new  phenomenon,  much  of  the  research  to  date   has  been  concerned  with  tracking  students’  results  in  terms  of  language  gains  and  countering  predictions  that   content  would  be  lost  (Lasagabaster  &  Ruiz  de  Zarobe,  2010;  Perez  Cañado,  2018a,  2018b,  2018c;  Rumlich,   2016).   The   generally   positive   outcomes   reported  mean   that   CLIL   research   is   now  entering   a   consolidation   phase  in  which  different  pedagogical  approaches  within  CLIL  can  be  evaluated  and  good  practices  identified.   In   particular,   there   is   currently   growing   awareness   of   the   need   to   provide   better   content-­‐related   literacy   support  for  students  who  enter  secondary  school  with  language  competences  around  the  Common  European   Framework   of   Reference   for   Languages   (CEFR)   B1   level   but   who   still   find   the   general   academic   and   disciplinary  language  used  in  CLIL  courses  challenging  (Meyer,  2015;  Whittaker,  Llinares,  &  McCabe,    2011).       2.  Developing  literacies  in  CLIL   The   goal   of   CLIL   courses   is   to   empower   students   to   use   English   across   “the   whole   range   of   the   language  which  shapes  educational  knowledge”  (Llinares,  Morton,  &  Whittaker,  2012,  p.  8).   It  goes  without   saying   that   literacy   skills   play   an   important   role   in   this.   In   this   section,  we  briefly   examine   some  different   approaches   to   CLIL   literacy   beyond   basic   general   language   skills   and   explain   how   these   appear   to   be   interrelated.     2.1.  CALP  and  academic  literacies   Literacy  covers  a  fundamental  set  of  competences  at  all  levels  of  education,  since  it  encompasses  the   ability   to   understand   and   communicate   knowledge,   arguments   and   feelings   through   semiotic   systems,   particularly   written   language.   Within   bilingual   education   and   CLIL,   the   issue   of   developing   literacies   was   originally  approached  using  the  notion  of  Cognitive  Academic  Language  Proficiency  (CALP)  (Cummins,  1979),   which   brings   together   the   cognitive   and   language   competences   needed   as   students   progress   through   schooling.   These   competences   contrast   with   the   Basic   Interpersonal   Communicative   Skills   (BICS)   that   are   usually   acquired   first   in   immersion   situations   in   primary   school.   The   CALP   approach   thus   places   its  main   emphasis  on   the   language  needed   to  advance   through  education   in  English   from  the   later  years  of  primary   school   onwards,   thinking   in   particular   of   the   linguistic   competencies   required   to   express   more   complex   concepts,   as  well   as  general   features  of   academic   register.  At   school   levels,   academic  writing  pedagogy  has   been   greatly   influenced   by   the   concepts   of   register   and   genre   (Martin  &   Rose,   2005).   The   aims,   if   not   the   methodology,   of   such   literacy   pedagogies   can   be   compared   with   those   of   English   for   Academic   Purposes   (EAP)  at  higher  levels,  since  the  main  focus  is  on  general  academic  language,  and  on  the  common  needs  that   arise   across   the  whole   curriculum.   In   broad   terms,   these   approaches   centre   on   the   specific   language   skills   required  by  academic  contexts,  notably  mastery  of  formal  written  English  style  and  familiarity  with  academic   genres  and  conventions  (Hyland,  2006;  Jordan,  2010;  Menken,  2013).       2.2.  Moving  towards  disciplinary  literacies   The   constructs   of   CALP   and   academic   literacies   assume  one   academic   language   proficiency   that   is   valid   across   content   areas.   However,   as   students   advance   from   primary   school   to   secondary   school,   it   BUILDING  LITERACIES:  THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  ACADEMIC  WRITING  SUPPORT     E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 23 becomes   increasingly   evident   that   other   approaches   must   factor   into   the   complexity   of   learning   to   communicate  in  different  disciplines.  Just  as  English  for  Academic  Purposes  (EAP)  in  higher  education  is  often   complemented  by  English   for   Specific  Purposes   (ESP)   support,  which  helps   students   acquire  more   focused   discipline-­‐specific  literacy  skills,  the  CALP  approach  is  now  being  understood  as  a  starting  point  from  which   more   specific   types  of   support   can   foster   literacy   skills  needed   in  different   curricular  areas   (Meyer,  2015).   Renewed   interest   is   now   also   being   focused   on   issues   such   as   content   area   literacies   and   disciplinary   literacies,  which  address  the  need  for  a  subject-­‐specific  approach  to  acquisition  of  language  competences.     One   important   issue   in   this   is   the   distinction   made   by   some   experts   (Shanahan,   2012)   between   content  area   literacies  and  disciplinary   literacies.  To  begin  with   the  more  straightforward  concept,   content   area   literacy   is  understood  as   the  ability   to  understand  and  use   the   language  associated  with  a   specialized   field,   which   involves   familiarity   with   vocabulary   and   genres   in   a   general   sense.   It   does   not,   however,   necessarily   imply   deep   conceptual   understanding   (Shanahan,   2012).   The   more   complex   concept   of     disciplinary  literacy  refers  to  the  ability  to  use  “the  knowledge  and  abilities  possessed  by  those  who  create,   communicate   and   use   knowledge  within   the   disciplines”   (Shanahan,   2012,   p.   8).   Disciplinary   literacy   thus   ultimately   approximates   proficiency   in   “the   unique   uses   and   implications   of   literacy   within   the   various   disciplines”   (Shanahan,   2012,   p.   8),   which   relies   on   deep   content   knowledge   with   a   strong   cognitive   underpinning.   Fully   functional   disciplinary   literacy   is   thus   distinguished   from   content   area   literacy   in   the   importance   attributed   to   the   conceptual   level   (i.e.,   dunderstanding   the   term   Renaissance   is   different   from   grasping  the  full  network  of  associations  that  might  be  generated  around  this  term  in  a  history  course).  At  the   high   school   level,   then,   the   long-­‐term   aim   should   be   to   move   towards   disciplinary   literacy,   which   entails   knowing  how  to  tackle  subject-­‐specific  tasks  in  a  way  that  meets  disciplinary  expectations.       2.3.  The  key  role  of  cognitive  discourse  functions   One   particular   focus   that   can   help   us   to   conceptualise   the   content   area   literacy   skills   needed   in   particular  content  areas  and  how  these  might  engage  with  the  long-­‐term  goals  of  disciplinary  literacy,  centres   on  discourse  functions.  Discourse  functions  in  pragmatics  are  built  on  the  notion  of  the  speech  act  as  verbal   action   that   reflects   cognitive  processes:  prototypical   communicative   actions   that  people   take  when  dealing   with  knowledge.  This  concept  has  been   found  both   interesting  and  useful  when  adapted   to  CLIL  because   it   constitutes   a   nexus   between   the   two   main   issues   in   CLIL,   namely   content   learning   and   language   reception/production   (Coetzee-­‐Lachmann,   2009;   Zydatiß,   2005).   In   a   further   development   of   this   idea,   Dalton-­‐Puffer  (2013)  formulated  the  notion  of  the  Cognitive  Discourse  Function  (CDF),  which  explicitly  builds   a  connection  with  the  underlying  cognitive  competence  (as  formulated,  say,  in  Bloom’s  taxonomy).  Moreover,   aside   from   encapsulating   cognitive   and   content   learning   in   linguistic   structures,   CDFs   also   offer   a   bridge   between   the  building  blocks  of   language   (lexicogrammar)  and  complex   language-­‐based  structures   (genres)   (Lorenzo  &  Dalton-­‐Puffer,  2016).  Previous  work  in  this  area  has  shed  light  on  the  use  of  CDFs  in  secondary   school  history  (Lorenzo,  2017),  providing  detailed  qualitative  analysis  of  the  seven  CDFs  identified  by  Dalton-­‐ Puffer   (2013)   (classify,   define,   describe,   evaluate,   explain,   explore   and   report)   as   they   are   materialised   in   student  writing  and  illustrating  their  importance  in  conveying  disciplinary  learning.     One   example   suffices   to   illustrate   why   CDFs   are   promising   for   the   study   of   CLIL.   In  many   school   subjects,  such  as  biology  or  geography,  it  is  important  for  students  to  understand  classification  systems  (e.g.,   of  plants,  animals,  climates,  etc.).  To  do  this,  they  need  to  remember  the  important  points  to  be  observed  (e.g.,   the  number  of  leaves,  type  of  skeleton,  etc.)  and  to  apply  that  knowledge,  using  the  thinking  skills  of  compare   and  classify.  Although   comparing  and   classifying  are  generally   considered   to  be   lower  order   thinking   skills   (Krathwohl,   2002),   they   represent   an   important   rung   on   the   ladder   of   learning.   They   are   closely   linked   together:  compare  can  be  viewed  as  a  necessary  stage  on  the  way  to  classify,  or  as  a  sub-­‐function  of  it,  since  it   involves   identifying  similarities  and  differences  which  can  then  be  used  for  classification  purposes.  Content   area   literacy   is   needed   (e.g.,   the   names   of   the   different   elements   in   the   system   and   the   terms   used   for   classifying  them),  of  course.  But  it  can  also  be  argued  that  to  negotiate  the  lexical  and  cognitive  demands  of   the   classifying   process,   and   to   explain   this   process   using   academic   discourse,   a   productive   combination   of   linguistic  and  conceptual  elements   is   required.  Mastery  of   the  cognitive  discourse   function  classify   involves   managing  concepts  (classification  systems),  and  technical  vocabulary  (names  of  specific  climatic  features  or   parts  of  the  organism),  but  also  general  language  structures  (i.e.,  comparatives)  and  general  academic  English   competences  related  to  choices  in  register  and  ways  of  organising  discourse.  We  can  speculate  that  all  of  this   together  amounts  to  the  acquisition  of  incipient  disciplinary  literacy  competences.     BREEZE  &  GERNS  JIMÉNEZ-­‐VILLAREJOS   E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 24 Conversely,  if  we  choose  to  approach  the  same  question  from  a  negative  perspective,  we  can  see  that   inadequate  academic  language  skills  almost  certainly  impede  the  production  of  appropriate  CDFs  (Breeze  &   Dafouz,  2017)  and  hinder  the  development  of  disciplinary  literacy.  One  only  needs  to  think  of  the  problems   caused  when   students   lack   the   suitable   academic   literacy   skills   to   use   structures   such   as   nominalisations,   which   are   essential   to   convey   complex   information   succinctly   in   historical   or   scientific   contexts   (Nashaat   Soby,  2019;  Whittaker  et  al.,  2011).     2.4.  An  integrated  model  of  literacy  development   On   the   basis   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   we   can   see   that   the   learning   outcomes   for   our   students   involve  at  least  four  levels  of  language  competence,  which  can  be  summarised  as  follows:     − General  English  language  competences.   − Academic  writing   proficiency   (use   of   formal   register,   clarity   and   concision,   and   logical   ordering   of   information).   − Content   area   literacy   skills   (appropriate   terminology,   familiarity   with   important   genres,   and   initiation  into  CDFs).   − Disciplinary   literacy   skills   (satisfactory   integration   of   cognitive   structures   and   their   linguistic   execution   in  CDFs,   full   conceptual  grasp  of   concepts  and  ability   to  express   these  using  appropriate   terminology  and  register,  fully  appropriate  use  of  genre,  and  development  of  a  discipline-­‐appropriate   voice).     In  this  sense,  general  language  skills  constitute  the  most  basic  component,  and  these  can  be  enhanced   when  academic  writing  proficiency  is  reinforced.  This  academic  literacy  probably  encompasses  much  of  what   Coyle  (2005)  describes  under  the  heading  of  language  for  learning  (discussion  skills,  language  for  presenting   in   public   or  writing   academic   texts).   At   the   same   time,   content   area   literacy   (reflecting   aspects   of   Coyle’s   (2005)   language  of   learning)  can  be  built  up,  which   lays   the   foundations  on  which  disciplinary   literacy  can   ultimately  be  constructed.  This  aspect  is  particularly  important  in  CLIL  contexts,  because  without  the  content   area   language   skills   (terminology,   familiarisation  with   functions   and   genres   in   disciplinary   contexts),   little   progress  is  likely  to  be  made  in  attaining  higher  disciplinary  competences.  Moreover,  there  is  a  large  area  of   overlap   between   content   area   literacy   and   academic   literacy,   which   probably   includes   many   aspects   of   strategic  competence  in  reading  and  writing  (Ruiz  de  Zarobe  &  Zenotz,  2014).  Finally,  through  the  confluence   of   development   in   cognitive   skills,   content   knowledge,   and   language   competence,   students   will   come   to   acquire   full  disciplinary   literacy   (Polias,  2015;  Shanahan,  2012).   In  Coyle’s   (2005)   terms,  academic   literacy   and   content   area   literacy   come   together   in   CLIL   settings   to   push   the   ongoing   development   of   disciplinary   language  through  learning,  which  can  be  understood  as  incipient  disciplinary  literacy.     However,   if   we   are   teaching   in   secondary   school,   it   may   be   useful   to   remember   that   the   full   attainment  of   this   goal  may   lie   several   years  ahead.  Figure  1  provides  a   graphic   representation  of   the  way   these  four  aspects  of  language  can  be  visualised  (other  non-­‐linguistic  aspects,  such  as  content  knowledge  and   cognitive   skills,   are   obviously   developing   at   the   same   time   as   literacy   and   in   close   association  with   it,   and   these  ultimately  contribute  to  full  disciplinary  literacy  as  well).  The  arrows  are  used  to  indicate  progression,   showing  the  order  in  which  the  different  aspects  of  literacy  are  usually  acquired,  with  academic  literacy  and   content  area  literacy  developing  concurrently,  preparing  the  basis  for  mature  disciplinary  literacy.  It  should   be  noted,  however,  that  as  in  so  many  educational  situations,  the  areas  of  overlap  may  be  considerable,  and   many  aspects  of  disciplinary  literacy  are  already  present  in  incipient  form  as  aspects  of  academic  literacy  and   content  area  literacy.   BUILDING  LITERACIES:  THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  ACADEMIC  WRITING  SUPPORT     E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 25 Figure 1. Integrated model of literacy development.   One   of   the   advantages   of   visualising   the   development   of   disciplinary   literacy   in   this  way   is   that   it   suggests   a   possible   integration   of   the   students’   ongoing   academic   literacy   development  with   their   content   area  literacy  skills.  This  points  once  more  to  the  usefulness  of  the  kind  of  general  academic  language  support   fostered  by  the  CALP/academic  literacy  approach;  it  can  serve  as  an  important  basis  for  the  development  of   higher  skills  that  is  perfectly  compatible  with  specific  content  area  skills.  This  is  important,  because  it  gives   space  to  the  explicit  teaching  of  academic  language  within  the  CLIL  curriculum.  This  could  be  fully  integrated   into  content  courses,  as  the  intersecting  area  suggests,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  productive  transfer  of  literacy   skills.   Figure   1   also   brings   out   the   key   role   of   CDFs   as   a   bridge   between   content   area   literacy   and   full   disciplinary  literacy.  In  our  view,  one  way  of  measuring  students’  literacy  progress  is  by  investigating  the  use   of   CDFs   in   their  writing.  Our   hypothesis   is   that   greater   awareness   of   certain   features   of   academic  writing,   especially  paragraph  organisation  and  use  of  discourse  markers,  will  help  students  to  become  more  proficient   writers  in  their  discipline,  and  also  to  produce  the  target  CDFs  in  a  more  appropriate  manner.     3.  Empirical  study   3.1.  Rationale   Given   the   importance   of   general   academic   English   competences,   and   the   overlapping   nature   of   academic  literacy  and  content  area  literacy,  pedagogical  intervention  in  this  area  would  seem  to  be  a  priority.   It  is  therefore  surprising  that  few  studies  deal  explicitly  with  the  efficacy  of  academic  writing  support  for  CLIL   students.  Most   of   the  published   studies   focusing  on   students’  written  production   in   secondary   school  CLIL   subjects  take  a  strictly  descriptive  acquisition-­‐driven  approach  (Llinares  et  al.,  2012;  Lorenzo,  2017;  Lorenzo   &   Dalton-­‐Puffer,   2016).   In   the   present   paper,   our   intention   is   to   contribute   to   the   development   of   CLIL   pedagogy   by   testing,   in   one   specific   CLIL   context,   whether   a   focus   on   academic   writing   skills   enhances   students’  content  area  literacy  by  helping  them  to  produce  the  appropriate  CDFs.     3.2.  Objectives   This  paper   centres  on   the   impact  of   a   short  academic  writing  module   taught  within  a  CLIL  history   course   on   the   students’   production   of   two   related   CDFs,   namely   describe   and   explain,   in   an   exam   context,   comparing  students’  writing  before  and  after  the  module.  It  addresses  the  following  research  questions:     − Does   explicit   academic   writing   instruction   help   students   to   display   their   disciplinary   learning   to   better  effect?   − Does  explicit  academic  writing  instruction  improve  students’  use  of  the  CDFs  describe  and  explain?       3.3.  Contextualisation   This  paper  uses  data  obtained  in  an  experimental  study  involving  45  14-­‐  and  15-­‐year-­‐old  students  in   a   Spanish   secondary   school.   All   of   them  were   studying   history   in   English  with   the   same   teacher,   for   three   hours  per  week,  for  the  entire  year,  in  two  different  groups.  The  school  has  a  long  history  of  CLIL,  with  many   content  courses  taught   in  English  throughout  the  primary  and  secondary  curriculum.  During  this  particular   year,   in   addition   to   the   three   hours   of   history   taught   in   English,   the   students  were   also   taking   a   B2-­‐level   English  course  for  three  hours  a  week.     General'language' competences: listening,'speaking reading,'writing Academic'literacy' competences:'formal' register,'clarity,'concision,' textual'organisation. Content'area'literacy'skills:' terminology,'awareness'of' genres,'initiation'into'CDFs Disciplinary'literacy:' satisfactory execution and integration of CDFs, full conceptual grasp of concepts and ability to express these using appropriate terminology and register, fully appropriate use of genre BREEZE  &  GERNS  JIMÉNEZ-­‐VILLAREJOS   E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 26 During   the   year,   in   addition   to   covering   major   events   and   trends   in   the   13th-­‐16th   centuries,   the   course   included   various   aspects   of   technological   development   during   the   Renaissance   and   early   modern   period.  As  part  of  their  December  exam,  at  the  end  of  the  first  term  of  their  CLIL  history  course,  the  history   teacher  asked  the  students  to  describe  and  explain  two  of  the  inventions  devised  by  Leonardo  da  Vinci.  These   answers  constitute  the  pre-­‐test  for  this  study.  Analysis  of  the  results  from  this  exam  prompted  the  design  of  a   practitioner   research   project   (unpublished)   to   improve   the   students’   academic   writing   in   the   context   of   history.  This  took  the  form  of  a  writing  module  taught  over  two  weeks,  designed  to  support  essay  writing  in   general,  and  to  raise  awareness  of  the  interactional  and  interactive  aspects  of  academic  writing.  Both  groups   (45   students)   took   the  writing  module   as   part   of   their   history   course.   Part   of   the   exam   at   the   end   of   the   second  term  (March)  asked  the  students  to  describe  and  explain  Gutenberg’s  printing  press.  This  was  used  as   the  post-­‐test  for  this  study  (see  Table  1).     Table 1 Study design All  45  students  completed  both  tasks  under  test  conditions  and  were  present  for  most  of  the  sessions   of  the  writing  module.  Students  who  did  not  fulfil  these  conditions  were  excluded  from  the  sample.     3.4.  Pre-­‐  and  post-­‐test   The  pre-­‐  and  post-­‐test  formed  part  of  the  first  and  second  term  exams,  respectively.  In  both  cases,  the   students  had  to  perform  under  test  conditions,  and  were  not  permitted  to  use  course  books,  dictionaries  or   other  reference  materials.  The  questions  were  designed  using  the  principles  and  vocabulary  outlined  by  Biggs   and  Tang  (2011).  The  prompts  were  thus  carefully  formulated  so  that  their  wording  would  prompt  responses   that   would   operationalise   describe   and   explain,   following   the   principles   of   constructive   alignment.   The   prompts  were  also   judged  by   the   course   teacher   to  be  of   a   similar   level  of  difficulty,   since  both   required  a   description/   explanation   of   a   mechanical   device   with   several   components.   Although   the   printing   press   is   mechanically   more   complex,   the   intrinsic   idea   and   basic   function   did   not   prove   difficult   for   students   to   understand.   The   pre-­‐test   prompt   considered   for   this   study   was:   Describe   Leonardo   da   Vinci’s   fantastic   invention   the   giant   crossbow.   How   does   it   work?   The   post-­‐test   question  was:  Describe   Gutenberg’s   printing   press.  How  did  it  work?     3.5.  Writing  module   A  six-­‐hour  writing  module  was  designed  to  raise  students’  awareness  of  the  forms  and  functions  of   academic   writing   in   English.   The   module   centred   on   the   general   features   of   academic   writing   and   on   analysing   the   writing   prompt   in   order   to   provide   an   appropriate   answer.   Further,   the   module   included   instruction   and   practice   on   how   to   organise   paragraphs  with   a   view   to   communicating  with   a   reader   and   displaying   knowledge   (Llinares   et   al.,   2012,   p.   257).   A   genre-­‐based   pedagogical   approach   was   adopted,   following  the  principle  of  presenting  a  genre  or  part-­‐genre  (i.e.  the  paragraph),  analysing  it,  modelling  it  with   the  whole   class   to   compose   a   paragraph   jointly   on   the   board,   then   setting   exercises   to   provide   controlled   practice   at   organising   information   and   linking   that   information   together   with   discourse   markers   (Breeze,   2012;  Martin  &  Rose,  2005).  Relevant  genre  features  covered  by  the  module  included  topic  sentences,  linking   words  (temporal  and  argumentative  organisers)  and  apposite  use  of  examples  (Ball  et  al.,  2015,  pp.  160-­‐172).   The  main  content  areas  of  the  module  are  set  out  in  Table  2.  The  module  was  designed  in  this  way  with  the   aim  of  providing  useful  general  practice  with  academic  writing  tasks  within  the  history  course,  which  might   help  students  perform  better  across  a  range  of  different  question  types.     It  is  important  to  note  that  the  CDFs  describe  and  explain  were  not  an  explicit  focus  within  the  writing   module.   However,   the   students   taking   the   writing   module   did   devote   time   to   analysing   exam   questions   containing   these,   and   other,   prompts,   and   to   discussing   how   they   would   organise   their   answers   to   such   questions  in  paragraphs.  This  design  means  that  any  improvement  found  in  the  post-­‐tests  could  be  attributed   Action Purpose Schedule First term exam Pre-test December 2016 Writing module Intervention February 2017 Second term exam Post-test March 2017 BUILDING  LITERACIES:  THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  ACADEMIC  WRITING  SUPPORT     E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 27 to   the   students’   improved  writing   skills   and   their  greater  awareness  of   the  need   to   respond   to   the  prompt   clearly,  rather  than  to  a  very  specific  focus  on  the  language  and  cognitive  skills  needed  to  describe  and  explain.     Table 2. Contents of academic writing module Academic writing instruction Literacy practice Formal register Text correction exercise Paragraph structure (topic sentences, paragraph organisation) Paragraph writing practice Discourse organisers (temporal organisers, argumentative organisers) Practice with discourse organisers Practice at organising information Use of examples Practice at providing and integrating examples Awareness of CDFs Analysis of exam questions, identification of key words 4.    Analysis  of  pre-­‐  and  post-­‐test   In  order  to  analyse  the  pre-­‐  and  post-­‐tests,  it  is  important  to  look  in  more  detail  at  what  is  needed  to   perform   the   CDFs   describe   and   explain   successfully.   According   to   Krathwohl’s   revised   version   of   Bloom’s   taxonomy  (2002,  p.  215),  describing  is  a  lower  order  skill  related  to  recalling  (remembering),  and  is  generally   related  to  factual  knowledge.  Explaining  is  slightly  higher  on  the  scale,  as  it  requires  a  basis  of  understanding   and  calls  for  the  application  of  some  conceptual  knowledge.  In  terms  of  content,  the  most  important  aspect  of   the  description/explanation   is  whether  or  not   it   includes   the  key  aspects  of   the   invention.  This   genre   thus   bears  a  strong  resemblance  to  the  explanations  required  in  the  science  or  geography  curriculum  discussed  by   Llinares  et  al.  (2011,  pp.  120-­‐132).  Previous  analyses  of  describe  have  shown  that  depending  on  the  type  of   entity  involved,  there  are  fairly  tight  disciplinary  requirements  as  to  what  has  to  be  described  (Davies,  1997;   Flowerdew,  2001,  p.  96),  with  the  required  inclusion  of  a  certain  minimum  number  of  aspects.  If  the  entity  to   be   described   is   a   process   or   invention,   this   usually   requires   more   complex   explanatory   elements,   which   implies   a   greater   ability   to   convey   the   relationship   between   different   components.   Explanations   are   often   causal,  but   they  may  also  be  sequential  or   factorial   (Llinares  et  al.,  2012,  p.  121).  An   important  point   in  all   this,  however,  is  to  note  that  description  and  explanation  are  closely  interconnected,  and  the  learners’  ability   to  produce  satisfactory  writing  often  hinges  on  their  capacity  to  integrate  both  describe  and  explain   in  their   answers  (Breeze  &  Dafouz,  2017).     In  what  follows,  the  quantitative  data  bring  out  differences  between  the  pre-­‐  and  post-­‐test  in  terms  of   inclusion   of   key   points   and   clarity   of   expression,   as   indicated   by   quantitative   measures:   use   of   topic   sentences,  use  of  linking  words.    The  qualitative  analysis  focuses  on  some  representative  examples  in  order  to   illustrate  the  developments  in  the  students’  performance  of  the  target  CDFs  describe  and  explain.     4.1.  Quantitative  data   In   the   case   of   the   two   inventions   to   be   described/explained   here,   after   consultation   of   course   material  and  discussion  with  the  teacher,  the  following  four  essential  elements  were  identified,  shown  here   with  the  CDF  that  best  reflects  their  nature  (see  Appendix  A  for  examples  of  how  the  elements  were  coded):     − Purpose  explain   − Key  parts  describe   − Material  describe   − How  it  works  explain     The  criteria  used  to   judge   inclusion  were  broad,   in  that  we  counted  any  attempt  at  describing  how   the  invention  worked,  or  any  mention  of  at  least  two  of  the  key  parts  (for  key  parts)  or  the  material  they  were   made   of   (for  material).   The   students’   answers  were   read,   and   the   presence   or   absence   of   each   of   the   four   elements   identified   by   two   researchers  working   independently,   in   cases   of   discrepancy,   a   consensus   score   was  given.  Figure  2  shows  in  simply  quantitative  terms  how  many  students  included  these  four  elements  of   describe  and  explain  in  their  pre-­‐test  and  post-­‐test  descriptions,  and  how  many  included  only  3,  2,  1  or  0.           BREEZE  &  GERNS  JIMÉNEZ-­‐VILLAREJOS   E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 28       Figure 2. Number of key elements included in descriptions: pre-test and post-test (N=45) Figure  2  shows  a  considerable  increase  in  the  number  of  students  who  included  all  four  elements  in   the   post-­‐test   (16   in   the   pre-­‐test   and   29   in   the   post-­‐test),   and   thus   completed   the   task   successfully,  with   a   corresponding   decrease   in   the   number   of   students   who   included   two,   one,   or   none.   The   results   from   a   contingency  table  (Chi  square  test)  comparing  students   in  the  pre-­‐  and  post-­‐test  who  included  all  elements   with  those  who  did  not  include  all  elements  were  significant  at    χ²  (2,  N  =  45)  =  8.7154,  p  <  .01.   As   Figure   3   shows,  many  more   students   (30   as   opposed   to   5)   introduced   their   description  with   a   topic   sentence   in   the   post-­‐test.   The   difference   between   the   number   of   descriptions   introduced   by   a   topic   sentence   in   the  pre-­‐test  and   the  post-­‐test  was  significant  at  χ²   (2,  N  =  45)  =  29.2208,  p  <   .01  using   the  Chi   square  test.   Figure 3. Number of descriptions with presence of topic sentence: pre-test and post-test (N=45) Both   the   pre-­‐test   and   the   post-­‐test   required   students   to   order   the   stages   of   a   simple   process   to   explain   how   an   invention   worked.   This   could   be   accomplished   without   linking   words,   but   answers   that   included  linking  words  were  generally  clearer.  Figure  4  illustrates  the  use  of  linking  words  in  the  pre-­‐test  and   post-­‐test.   Many   more   were   used   in   the   post-­‐test,   presumably   as   a   direct   result   of   the   academic   writing   module,   where   students   had   learned   the   importance   of   ordering   information   clearly   and   practiced   using   Four Four Three Three Two Two One One Zero Zero 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Pre-test: Crossbow Post-test: Press N um be r o f s tu de nt s Present Present Absent Absent 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Pre-test: Crossbow Post-test: Press Nu m be r o f s tu de nt s BUILDING  LITERACIES:  THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  ACADEMIC  WRITING  SUPPORT     E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 29 discourse  markers.  Moreover,  the  students’   increased  awareness  of  the  need  to  understand  the  prompt  and   provide  a  full  answer  probably  accounted  for  the  greater  effort  made  in  the  post-­‐test.  This  will  be  illustrated   by  the  examples  in  the  next  section  (qualitative  data),  i.e.,  examples  3,  4,  5  and  6.   Figure 4. Use of linking words in pre- and post-test: sequencers A  different  picture  emerges  from  the  use  of  other  types  of  linking  word,  as  we  can  see  from  Figure  5.   Students   in   the   pre-­‐test   tended   to   favour   also   as   a   vague   way   of   connecting   one   part   of   a   description   to   another.  The  use  of  more  exact  linkers  in  the  post-­‐test  meant  that  also  was  not  needed.  ut  also  appeared  more   in  the  pre-­‐test,  which  is  probably  an  artefact  of  the  task  itself:  this  invention  itself  had  a  double  purpose,  and   it  was   the   explanation   for   this   that   tended   to  motivate   the  use  of  but   as   in   the   example:   “it  was   a  military   instrument  but  Leonardo  made  it  to  intimidate  not  to  kill  people”.  On  the  other  hand,  so  and  because  appeared   more   in   the   post-­‐test,   which   suggests   that   the   students   were   trying   harder   to   establish   explicit   causal   relations.   Figure 5. Use of linking words in pre- and post-test: additive, contrastive, causal.     0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Nu m be r o f s tu de nt s Pre-test: Crossbow Post-test: Press 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Also But So (that) Because Nu m be r o f s tu de nt s Pre-test: Crossbow Post-test: Press BREEZE  &  GERNS  JIMÉNEZ-­‐VILLAREJOS   E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 30 Overall,  the  quantitative  data  suggest  that  the  students’  answers  in  the  post-­‐test  were  more  complete   and   contained   more   of   the   organisational   features   characteristic   of   academic   writing.   However,   the   mere   presence  of  linking  words  is  not  in  itself  proof  that  the  answers  were  actually  better.  In  the  next  section,  we   will  undertake  a  qualitative  exploration  of  the  answers  to  see  whether  the  ostensible  increase  in  organising   strategies   helped   students   to   perform   the   appropriate   CDFs   and   to   display   their   historical   knowledge   to   greater  effect.     4.2.  Qualitative  data   The  first  point   that  should  be  made   is   that  around  50%  of  students   in  the  pre-­‐test  were  capable  of   using  some  appropriate  CDFs  (describe  and  explain)  without  any  discourse  markers  and  without  an  academic   paragraph  structure.  Consider  the  following  example  from  the  pre-­‐test:     1)     Giant   crossbow.   It   was   designed   for   pure   intimidation   for   the   war.   The   giant   crossbow   intimidates  because   it  was   enormous   (27   yards).  Designed   to   fire   large   stones  or  possibly   flaming.  For  the  mobility  the  giant  crossbow  have  6  wheels,  3  on  each  side.  It  was  made  out   of  thin  wood  for  flexibility  and  of  a  rope  (for  throw  the  stones).  It  work  like  this:  you  put  the   giant  crossbow  on  the  direction  you  want  to  throw  it.  Next  you  put  the  stone  in  the  rope  and   you  throw  it.  (A17)     This   description   is   adequate,   in   that   it   reports   the   essential   parts   (three  wheels   on   each   side,   the   rope,   the   stones),   stating  what   they   are  made   of  where   relevant   (thin  wood   for   flexibility).   Importantly,   it   includes  an  explanation  of  the  purpose  (intimidation),  and  it  also  explains  the  functioning  in  a  rudimentary   way   (you  put   the   stone   in   the   rope   and   you   throw   it).  With   regard   to   language,   the   student   uses   accurate   technical   vocabulary,   including   some   features   that   can   be   identified   as   academic,   such   as   nominalisations   (intimidation,  flexibility,  mobility),  and  passive  voice  (was  designed,  was  made  out  of).  On  the  negative  side,   we  can  observe  that  the  student’s  description  is  poorly  organised,  since  it  would  be  more  logical  to  begin  with   a  physical  description  of  the  whole  and  the  parts,  and  then  move  on  to  explain  how  it  worked,  and  what  its   real   intended   function  was.   It   is   also  marred   by   language   inaccuracies   (sentence   fragments,  missing   third-­‐ person   -­‐s,  confusion  of  to/for),  and  by  a  relapse   into   informal  register  with  overuse  of  you  when  describing   the   functioning  of   the  machine.  An  example   from  the  post-­‐test  serves  to   illustrate  some  of   the  typical  gains   made  in  this  group.       2)     Firstly  I’m  going  to  explain  how  the  Gutenberg’s  printing  press  worked  in  the  Renaissance.   First,  you  have  to  put  ink  into  two  balls  made  up  of  skin  of  deer  and  hair  of  horse.  Once  you   have  done  that,  you  put  the  balls  with  ink  in  the  metal,  where  are  all  the  words.  That  means   that  the  metal  is  with  ink.  Later  you  put  a  paper  in  the  side  of  the  words  and  with  pressure,   you  press.  The  words  of  the  metal  will  pass  the  ink  to  the  paper.  (…)  Therefore  it  was  faster   to  copy  the  books  without  mistakes.  (A5)     Although  the  language  of  (2)  is  not  markedly  more  accurate  than  the  language  of  (1),  the  description   provided  is  much  easier  to  follow  and  more  logically  organised.  The  use  of  temporal  connectors  (first,  once,   later)  and   logical  connectors   (that  means   that,   therefore)  enhances   the  readability  of   the   text  considerably.   Excerpt  2)  is  representative  of  the  way  an  increased  number  of  sequencers  and  logical  connectors  was  used   in   this   sample   (see   graphs   2   and   3   above).   Arguably,   these   improvements   could   perhaps   be   dismissed   as   superficial,  but  in  fact,  as  these  extracts  illustrate,  the  rise  in  explicit  signposting  accompanies  better  overall   organisation  and  greater  attention  to  the  communication  of  meaning.     Viewed  on  an  individual  level,  the  sample  of  texts  gathered  here  included  some  notable  examples  of   improvement.  Texts  3)  and  4)  were  composed  by  the  same  student  in  the  pre-­‐  and  post-­‐test.       3)     The  giant  crossbow  is  used  for  intimidate  the  enemy,  to  attack  and  defend.  It  throw  arrows   to  enemies  and  for  damage.  (B  25)     4)     First,   how  did  Gutenberg’s   printing   press  worked?   To   start,   you   had   to   cover   some   goose   skin  and  horse  hair  balls  with  ink  and  then  apply  the  ink  to  the  metal  letters  that  had  been   put  in  order  before.  Next  you  had  to  put  the  paper  in  the  frame  and  the  frame,  over  the  metal   BUILDING  LITERACIES:  THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  ACADEMIC  WRITING  SUPPORT     E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 31 letters.  Then  you  put  all  this  in  the  press  and  pressed  down.  Finally,  you  pulled  out  the  paper   with  the  text  perfectly  printed.  (B  25)     This  student  still  has  persistent  grammatical   inaccuracies.  However,  whereas  3)   is  a  rather  sketchy   performance  which   fulfils   two   of   the   requirements  minimally   (purpose   and   parts)   but   fails   to   take   up   the   opportunity   for   a   physical/mechanical   description/explanation,   4)   represents   a   serious   attempt   to   give   a   detailed  description  and  explanation  of  the  press  and  its  functioning.  Strong  points  here  are  the  introductory   sentence,   the  use  of  exact  vocabulary  (goose  skin  and  horse  hair  balls,  metal   letters,   frame),  and  the  use  of   temporal  organisers   (to   start,   and   then,  before,  next,   then,   finally).  Although   the  use  of   “you”   is  not   strictly   speaking   in   appropriate   academic   register,   here   it   provides   a   stable   interpersonal   framework   for   the   explanation,  adding  to  its  clarity.     One   more   example   of   a   single   student’s   improvement   is   illustrative,   showing   the   importance   of   sequencing  connectors  in  facilitating  understanding.     5)   The  giant  crossbow  is  a  weapon  to  attack  to  long  distance  objectives.  A  soldier  pull  back  the   rope,  they  put  the  giant  arrow,  they  put  their  hands  and  the  giant  crossbow  shoot.  (A7)     6)   For  the  first  point  I  will  explain  how  the  printing  press  works.  You  put  the  letters  in  a  table.   Then  you  put  ink  into  the  letters  with  ink  balls.  Then  you  press  a  paper  and  the  letter  will  be   printed.   This   helped   a   lot   to   the   Renaissance   Society   because   the   books   will   be   available   easier  and  the  letters  or  announcements  also.  (A7)     Although  both  texts  contain  a  clear  sequence  of  actions  within  their  explanations,  the  second  one  (6)   is   easier   to   understand   because   of   the   sequential   markers   (then),   which   are   an   improvement   on   the   list   separated  by  commas  in  (5)  and  evidence  improvement  in  the  student’s  achievement  of  the  CDF  explain.  The   topic  sentence  (For  the  first  point  I  will  explain  how  the  printing  press  works)  also  facilitates  understanding.   As  we  have   seen   from   the  quantitative   results,   a   large  proportion  of   the  descriptions   in   the  post-­‐tests  had   topic  sentences,  a  result  which  can  be  ascribed  directly  to  the  contents  of  the  academic  writing  module.  Again,   critics  might  dismiss   this   change  as   cosmetic,   but   the   inclusion  of   a   topic   sentence  probably  has   a  positive   impact  on  the  reader,  since  it  lessens  the  cognitive  effort  required  to  understand  the  text  and  contributes  to   “displaying”  the  student’s  knowledge  effectively  (Llinares  et  al.,  2012,  p.  257).  We  could  speculate  that  it  may   well  also  help  the  novice  writer  to  focus  on  what  he/she  is  going  to  achieve  in  the  text.     5.  Discussion     The   evidence   presented   in   this   study   illustrates   some   ways   in   which   general   academic   writing   support  may  enhance  a  CLIL  course,  and  to  students’  content  area  and  disciplinary  literacy  development.  By   raising   these   CLIL   students’   awareness   of   the   conventions   of   academic   writing,   particularly   the   need   for   tighter  and  more  explicit   textual  organisation  with  better  signposting,   the  academic  writing  module  helped   them   to   achieve   enhanced   results.   Although   some   students   were   already   able   to   provide   full,   organised   answers   to   the  question   in   the  pre-­‐test,  a  significant  number  of  students  showed   improved  performance   in   the  post-­‐test,  with  answers  that  were  better  organised  and  easier  to  read.  Moreover,  their  post-­‐test  answers   contained   fewer   irrelevancies,   and   were   generally   more   focused   on   the   task.   Interestingly,   students   elaborated  more  in  the  post-­‐test  than  the  pre-­‐test  answers.  It  is  not  entirely  clear  why  the  academic  writing   module   should   have   helped   students   produce   more   complete   answers,   although   this   could   perhaps   be   explained   by   the   students’   raised   awareness   of   three   key   issues:   the   purpose   of   the   task,   the   need   to   communicate   with   their   readers,   and   the   importance   of   displaying   the   information   learned   in   an   ordered   manner.  For  all  these  reasons,  it  is  fair  to  say  in  answer  to  our  first  research  question  that  explicit  academic   writing  instruction  helped  these  students  to  display  their  disciplinary  knowledge  to  better  effect.   Regarding  our  second  research  question  specifically  centring  on  the  production  of  CDFs,  we  observe   that   the  CDFs   in  question  (describe  and   explain)  were  achieved  more   fully   in   the  post-­‐tests.  Although  some   students   were   able   to   express   their   ideas   very   clearly   in   the   pre-­‐test,   producing   the   relevant   CDFs   with   minimal  use  of  metadiscursive  resources,  it  is  clear  that  their  improved  organisation  and  use  of  appropriate   discourse  markers  enhanced  their  execution  of  the  CDFs  in  the  post-­‐test.     We  must   emphasise   that   CDFs  were  not   a   specific   focus   of   this   academic  writing  module,   but   it   is   likely  that  the  teacher’s  insistence  on  the  need  to  understand  the  exam  prompt  and  provide  a  relevant  answer   BREEZE  &  GERNS  JIMÉNEZ-­‐VILLAREJOS   E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 32 sufficed   to  prompt   a   degree   of  metacognitive   awareness   and   to   nudge  many  of   these   students   in   the   right   direction.   The   question   remains   as   to   whether   more   explicit   metacognitive   instruction   about   the   specific   components  of  each  CDF  would  produce  better  results  (Breeze  &  Dafouz,  2017),  but  it  seems  highly  likely  that   this  would  be  the  case.  Such   instruction  and  practice  would  help  the  students  to  unpack  the  exam  prompts   more  effectively,   in  order   to  be  more  aware  of   the   linguistic,  metalinguistic  and  cognitive  demands  of  each   CDF.     To  conclude,  building  on  all  of   the  above,  we  would   like   to   suggest   that  by   focusing  specifically  on   academic   writing   skills,   this   teacher   was   able   to   push   CLIL   in   a   way   that   was   beneficial   for   content   and   language   learning.   Short   academic   literacy   modules   could   be   provided   within   the   framework   of   content   courses,  as  was  the  case  here,  or  taught  within  the  language  syllabus  for  the  year  in  question,  depending  on   the   way   the   curriculum   is   organised   at   the   school.   As   seen   in   Figure   1,   both   academic   and   content   area   literacies  have  a   role   to  play   in   students’  ongoing  development,   and   there   is   considerable  overlap  between   them.  The  crucial  point  is  to  ensure  that  students  make  a  connection  between  what  they  learn  about  writing   in   their   English   classes   or   writing   module   and   the   demands   placed   on   them   in   content   courses,   so   that   constructive   transfer  of   skills   can   take  place.   Ideally,   to   foster  positive   transfer,   students   could  be  asked   to   focus  on  content  subjects  within   the  writing  module,  and  both  English   teachers  and  content   teachers  could   collaborate   in   order   to   determine   the   criteria   for   what   students   need   to   write   and   how   the   final   product   should   be   assessed.   As   Shanahan   points   out   (2012),   many   content   teachers   resist   teaching   literacy   skills   because   they   lack  awareness  of   the   role  of   content  area  and  disciplinary   literacy  within   their  own   field,   or   because   they   feel   that   teaching   literacy   is   a   task   for   language   teachers   only.   Where   this   is   the   case,   cooperation  with  English  teachers  could  help  them  to  become  aware  of  their  embedded  knowledge  and  make   some  aspects  of   this  visible   to   their  students.   In   this  context,  a  genre-­‐based  perspective  offers  considerable   potential,   since   this  approach  offers  a  way  of   looking  at   texts   that   is  accessible  both   to   language  specialists   and  content  teachers  (Flowerdew,  2001).  But  crucially,  as  we  have  noted  above,  CDFs  should  provide  another   central  axis  around  which  academic  and  content  literacy  support  can  be  organised.   Finally,  it  is  necessary  to  stress  that  the  present  study  has  some  limitations.  In  particular,  the  sample   size  was  small  (only  45  students),  and  the  texts  used  as  pre-­‐  and  post-­‐tests  were  rather  short.  The  study  was   carried  out   in  only  one   school,   and   in  one   content   course  with   the   same  highly  motivated   teacher.  Further   studies   are   needed   to   better   ascertain   whether   CLIL   can   be   substantially   enhanced   if   tailored   academic   literacy  support  is  provided.   References   Ball,   Philip,   Kelly,   Keith,   &   Clegg,   John   (2015).  Putting   CLIL   into   practice.   Oxford,   United   Kingdom:   Oxford   University  Press.   Biggs,   John,   &   Tang,   Catherine   (2011).   Teaching   for   quality   learning   at   university:   What   the   student   does.   Maidenhead,  United  Kingdom:  Open  University.   Breeze,   Ruth   (2012).   Rethinking   academic   writing   pedagogy   for   the   European   university.   Amsterdam,   The   Netherlands:  Rodopi.   Breeze,  Ruth,  &  Dafouz,  Emma  (2017).  Negotiating  complex  cognitive  discourse  functions  in  L1  and  L2:  Exam   responses  in  a  parallel  L1-­‐EMI  university  course.  System,  70,  81-­‐91.   Cenoz,   Jasone,   Genesee,   Fred,   &   Gorter,   Durk   (2013).   Critical   analysis   of   CLIL:   Taking   stock   and   looking   forward.  Applied  Linguistics,  35(3),  243-­‐262.     Coetzee-­‐Lachmann,   Debbie   (2009).   Assessment   of   subject-­‐specific   task   performance   of   bilingual   geography   learners   (Unpublished   doctoral   thesis).   University   of   Osnabrück,   Germany.   Retrieved   from:   https://repositorium.ub.uni-­‐osnabrueck.de/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:gbv:700-­‐2009030617/2/E-­‐ Diss864_thesis.pdf   Coyle,  Do  (2005).  Developing  CLIL:  Towards  a  theory  of  practice.  APAC  Monograph  6.  Barcelona,  Spain:  APAC.     Cummins,   James  (1979).  Cognitive/academic   language  proficiency,   linguistic   interdependence,   the  optimum   age  question  and  some  other  matters.    Working  Papers  on  Bilingualism,  19,  121-129.   BUILDING  LITERACIES:  THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  ACADEMIC  WRITING  SUPPORT     E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 33 Dalton-­‐Puffer,   Christiane   (2013).   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.   Davies,  Florence  (1997).  Marked  theme  as  a  heuristic  for  analysing  text-­‐type,  text  and  genre.  In  Jordi  Piqué  &   David   Vieira,   (Eds.),   Applied   languages.   Theory   and   practice   in   ESP   (pp.   45-­‐71).   Valencia,   Spain:   Universitat  de  València.   Flowerdew,   John   (2001).   Genre   in   the   classroom:   A   linguistic   approach.   In   Ann   Johns   (Ed.),   Genre   in   the   classroom:  multiple  perspectives  (pp.  91-­‐103).  London,  United  Kingdom:  Routledge.   Hyland,   Ken   (2006).   English   for   academic   purposes:   An   advanced   resource   book.   London,   United   Kingdom:   Routledge.   Jordan,  Robert  R.  (2010).  English  for  academic  purposes.  Cambridge,  United  Kingdom:  Cambridge  University   Press.   Krathwohl,  David  (2002).  A  revision  of  Bloom’s  taxonomy.  Theory  into  Practice,  41(4),  212-­‐218.   Lasagabaster,  David,  &  Ruiz  de  Zarobe,  Yolanda   (2010).  Ways   forward   in  CLIL:  Provision   issues  and   future   planning.   In   David   Lasagabaster   &   Yolanda   Ruiz   de   Zarobe   (Eds.),   CLIL   in   Spain:   Implementation,   results   and   teacher   training   (pp.   278–295).   Newcastle   upon   Tyne,   United   Kingdom:   Cambridge   Scholars  Publishing.   Llinares,   Ana,  Morton,   Tom,   &  Whittaker,   Rachel   (2012).  The   roles   of   language   in   CLIL.   Cambridge,   United   Kingdom:  Cambridge  University  Press.   Lorenzo,   Francisco.   (2017).   Historical   literacy   in   bilingual   settings:   Cognitive   academic   language   in   CLIL   history  narratives.  Linguistics  and  Education,  37,  32-­‐41.   Lorenzo,  Francisco,  &  Dalton-­‐Puffer,  Christiane  (2016).  Historical  literacy  in  CLIL:  Telling  the  past  in  a  second   language.  In  Tarja  Nikula,  Emma  Dafouz,  Pat  Moore,  &  Ute  Smit  (Eds.),  Conceptualising  integration  in   CLIL  and  multilingual  education  (pp.  55-­‐72).  Bristol,  United  Kingdom:  Multilingual  Matters.   Marsh,  David,  Pérez  Cañado,  María  Luisa  &  Ráez  Padilla,   Juan  (Eds.).   (2015).  CLIL   in  action:  Voices   from  the   classroom.  Newcastle  upon  Tyne,  United  Kingdom:  Cambridge  Scholars.   Martin,   James,   &   Rose,   David   (2005).   Designing   literacy   pedagogy:   Scaffolding   asymmetries.   In   Jonathan   Webster,  Christian  Matthiessen,  &  Ruqaiya  Hasan  (Eds.),  Continuing  discourse  on  language  (pp.  251-­‐ 280).  London,  United  Kingdom:  Continuum.   Menken,   Kate   (2013).   Emergent   bilingual   students   in   secondary   school:   Along   the   academic   and   literacy   continuum.  Language  Teaching,  46(4),  438-­‐476.   Meyer,  Oliver  (2015).  A  pluriliteracies  approach  to  teaching  for  learning.  Graz,  Austria:  ECML.   Nashaat   Soby,   Nashwa   (2019).   Operationalising   “defining”   from   a   cognitive   discourse   perspective   for   learners’  use.  In  Sardar  Anwaruddin  (Ed.),  Knowledge  mobilization  in  TESOL:  Teachers’  experiences  of   connecting  research  and  practice  (pp.  95-­‐112).  Leiden,  The  Netherlands:  Brill.   Pérez  Cañado,  María  Luisa  (2018a).  CLIL  and  pedagogical  innovation:  Fact  or  fiction?  International  Journal  of   Applied  Linguistics,  28,  369-­‐390.   Pérez  Cañado,  María  Luisa  (2018b).  CLIL  and  educational  level:  A  longitudinal  study  on  the  impact  of  CLIL  on   language  outcomes.  Porta  Linguarum,  29,  51-­‐70.   Pérez   Cañado,   María   Luisa   (2018c).   The   effects   of   CLIL   on   L1   and   content   learning:   Updated   empirical   evidence  from  monolingual  contexts.  Learning  and  instruction,  57,  18-­‐33.     Polias,   John   (2015).   Apprenticing   students   into   science:   Doing,   talking,   writing   and   drawing   scientifically.   Stockholm,  Sweden:  Hallgren  and  Fallgren.   Ruiz  de  Zarobe,  Yolanda,  &  Zenotz,  Victoria  (2014).  Strategic  instruction  in  primary  education:  A  pathway  to   successful   learning   in   content-­‐based   courses.   In   Ruth   Breeze,   Carmen   Llamas   Saíz,   Concepción   Martínez  Pasamar,  &  Cristina  Tabernero  (Eds.),  Integration  of  theory  and  practice  in  CLIL  (pp.  37-­‐54).   Amsterdam,  The  Netherlands:  Rodopi.   Rumlich,   Dominik   (2016).   Evaluating   bilingual   education   in   Germany.   CLIL   students’   general   English   proficiency,  EFL  self-­‐concept  and  interest.  Frankfurt  am  Main,  Germany:  Peter  Lang.   Shanahan,   Timothy   (2012).   What   is   disciplinary   literacy   and   why   does   it   matter?   Topics   in   Language   Disorders,  32(1),  7-­‐18.   BREEZE  &  GERNS  JIMÉNEZ-­‐VILLAREJOS   E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 34 Whittaker,   Rachel,   Llinares,   Ana,   &   McCabe,   Anne   (2011).   Written   discourse   development   in   CLIL   at   secondary  school.  Language  Teaching  Research,  15(3),  343-­‐362.   Zydatiß,  Wolfgang  (2005).  Diskursfunktionen  in  einem  analytisch  curricularen  Zugriff  auf  Textvarietäten  und   Aufgaben   des   bilingualen   Sachfachunterrichts   [Discourse   functions   in   an   analytical   curricular   approach   to   text   varieties   and   exercises   in   bilingual   content   teaching.]  Fremdsprachen   Lehren   und   Lernen,  34,  156-­‐173.                     BUILDING  LITERACIES:  THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  ACADEMIC  WRITING  SUPPORT     E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 35 Appendix A Coding system [P] Purpose (explain): should include reference to faster reproduction of books. [KP] Key parts (describe): should include letters and press. [M] Material (describe): should include ink. [HW] How it works (explain): should explain how the ink gets onto the letters, and how pressure is used to print the letters on the paper. Example 1: Answer containing 4 elements (coding after each element) Gutenberg’s printing press. First you need to prepare the ink [M]. Then you put the ink in a pair of spheres “ink balls” [KP]. When they are fully covered in ink [M] you apply it [HW] in the models [KP]. This models were made by hand in relief [KP] but they were sculpted in mirror [KP], so when the ink touches the paper it prints it good [HW]. After this you pick the paper, a huge one, in the inner part or a top. Then you close the door and you’ll introduce in a press machine [KP] which press the ink in the paper [HW], then you open the door and take out the paper, which is typed [HW]. This actually helped a lot in the philosophy because copies were done lots of times faster than they did in the scriptoriums where they did the copies at hand [P]. By this way you saved time and the most important: the copies of very important texts or even music notes [P]. The history was parcialy saved. [P] Comment: All 4 elements satisfactorily included. Example 2: Answer containing 3 elements (coding after each element) Firstly I’m going to describe the printing press, the printing press is all wood [M], you have to pass all the ink [M] to the letters [KP] that you are going to put in your text, then when you pass all the ink to the letters [HW] you put the paper between two − [KP] and then you pull a wood thing [KP] to print the letters to the paper [HW]. Comment: Description of material, key parts and functioning are sufficient, but no mention of purpose. Example 3: Answer containing 2 elements (coding after each element) Firstly the Gutenberg’s printing is the first printer and one of the most important inventions we had never seen. This inventions makes us knowed a lot of historical events of how people were discovered in that time. But how it works? Good question this fabulous machine works with print and it’s a machine that makes that with like balls [KP] and like punching to the paper makes this paper with words [HW]. Comment: Only one key part is described explicitly, and the functioning is indicated a rather impressionistic manner. No reference to material or purpose.             BREEZE  &  GERNS  JIMÉNEZ-­‐VILLAREJOS   E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 36 Ruth Breeze,  Universidad de Navarra rbreeze@unav.es EN Ruth Breeze is a senior lecturer in English at the Universidad de Navarra, Spain, where she combines teaching with research as a member of the GradUN Research Group in the Instituto Cultura y Sociedad. Her most recent books are Corporate Discourse (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015) and the edited volumes Interpersonality in legal genres (Peter Lang, 2014), Essential competencies for English-medium university teaching (Springer, 2016), and Power, persuasion and manipulation in specialised genres (Peter Lang, 2017). She teaches and supervises PhD candidates in the area of language education, and she has published widely on language teaching, CLIL, specialized languages, and discourse analysis. ES Ruth Breeze es profesora titular de inglés en la Universidad de Navarra, España, y combina la enseñanza con la investigación en cuanto miembro del Grupo de Investigación GradUN en el Instituto de Cultura y Sociedad. Sus libros más recientes son Corporate Discourse (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015) y los volúmenes editados Interpersonality in legal genres (Peter Lang, 2014), Essential competencies for English-medium university teaching (Springer, 2016), and Power, persuasion and manipulation in specialised genres” (Peter Lang, 2017). Enseña cursos de doctorado y supervisa doctorandos en el ámbito de educación lingüística y, además, ha publicado numerosos artículos sobre enseñanza de idiomas, AICLE, lenguajes especializados y análisis del discurso. IT Ruth Breeze è Ruth Breeze è professore associato di inglese presso l’Universidad de Navarra, in Spagna, e combina l'insegnamento con la ricerca in quanto membro del GradUN Research Group nell'Instituto Cultura y Sociedad. I suoi libri più recenti sono Corporate Discourse (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015) e i volumi Interpersonality in legal genres (Peter Lang, 2014), "Essential competencies for English-medium university teaching" (Springer, 2016) e Power, persuasion and manipulation in specialised genres (Peter Lang, 2017). Insegna corsi di dottorato e supervisiona i dottorandi nel campo dell'educazione linguistica. Inoltre, ha pubblicato numerosi articoli sull’insegnamento della lingua, CLIL, linguaggi specializzati e analisi del discorso.     Pilar Gerns Jiménez-Villarejo,  Universidad de Navarra rbreeze@unav.es EN Pilar Gerns Jiménez-Villarejo is a doctoral student at the Universidad de Navarra, Spain, under the supervision of Prof. Breeze. As a researcher in the School of Education, she has some teaching assignments in the Department of Research Theory and Methods in Education. She has a degree in Philosophy from the Universidad de Navarra and one in English Studies from the UNED, as well as a Masters in Teaching Social Science and Foreign Languages in Secondary School from the Universidad de Santiago. Her current research is focused on the literacy development of secondary students in a natural science CLIL context. She is currently conducting two field studies to empirically analyze the effects of working with cognitive discourse function on students’ literacy development. ES Pilar Gerns Jiménez-Villarejo es una estudiante de doctorado en la Universidad de Navarra, España, bajo la supervisión del la Prof. Breeze. Forma parte del grupo de investigadores de la Escuela de Educación y enseña algunas clases en el Departamento de Teoría y Métodos de la Investigación en la Educación. Es licenciada en Filosofía por la Universidad de Navarra y Filología Inglesa por la UNED, además, tiene un Máster en Enseñanza de Ciencias Sociales y Lenguas Extranjeras en la Escuela Secundaria por la Universidad de Santiago. Su investigación actual se centra en el desarrollo de la alfabetización de estudiantes de secundaria en un contexto AICLE de ciencias naturales. Actualmente está realizando dos estudios de campo para analizar empíricamente los efectos que trabajar con la función del discurso cognitivo causa sobre el desarrollo de la literacidad de los estudiantes. IT Pilar Gerns Jiménez-Villarejo è una dottoranda presso l’Universidad de Navarra, in Spagna, sotto la supervisione della Professoressa Breeze. Ha alcuni incarichi di insegnamento presso il Dipartimento di Teoria e Metodi di Ricerca nell'Istruzione in quanto parte del personale di ricerca della School of Education. Ha conseguito una laurea in filosofia presso l’Universidad de Navarra e una in Anglistica presso l'UNED. Possiede, inoltre, un master in Insegnamento delle Scienze Sociali e delle Lingue Straniere nella Scuola Secondaria conseguito presso l’Universidad de Santiago. La sua attuale ricerca si concentra sullo sviluppo dell'alfabetizzazione degli studenti di scuola secondaria del corso di scienze naturali in un contesto CLIL. Attualmente sta conducendo due studi sul campo per analizzare empiricamente gli effetti che il lavoro con la funzione del discorso cognitivo produce sullo sviluppo dell'alfabetizzazione degli studenti. BUILDING  LITERACIES:  THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  ACADEMIC  WRITING  SUPPORT     E-­‐JournALL  6(1)  (2019),  pp.  21-­‐36 37