597 Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 12 (4). 2022. 597-622 https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.4.4 http://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/ssllt The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in a CLIL science class Julio Roca de Larios University of Murcia, Spain https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6046-1093 jrl@um.es Yvette Coyle University of Murcia, Spain https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3961-6131 ycoyle@um.es Vanessa García University of Murcia, Spain https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2603-1991 vanessa.garcia@murciaeduca.es Abstract The present study analyzed how a group of young Spanish-speaking English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) science class responded to an instructional unit integrating at- tention to functional language and an inquiry-oriented approach to science. Working in cooperation with the researchers, a year 4 primary school teacher implemented a teaching sequence on levers with 48 9-10-year-olds over three weeks. The sequence, which was intended to raise the children’s aware- ness of the demands involved in understanding (content goals) and express- ing as written reports (rhetorical goals) how levers work, scaffolded their ac- tivity from item-based writing to the production of full texts. On completing the unit, each child independently wrote a report on levers, all of which were analyzed from the perspective of cognitive discourse functions and ideational Julio Roca de Larios, Yvette Coyle, Vanessa García 598 meaning. The results of these analyses are discussed in terms of their signifi- cance for CLIL writing with young learners. Keywords: school genres; cognitive discourse functions; writing; CLIL; children 1. Introduction In the last fifteen years, content and language integrated learning (CLIL), that is, the teaching in the foreign language (FL) of subjects other than the FL itself, has been introduced in different European countries, Spain among them, as an al- ternative or supplement to traditional FL programs (e.g., Coyle et al., 2010). Teaching science, mathematics or history in CLIL contexts is regarded as an ed- ucationally desirable goal on the grounds that the cognitive discourse functions (CDFs) involved in learning this type of content (e.g., define, classify, evaluate) offer students opportunities to access powerful knowledge (Morton, 2020). These functions, which lie at the interface between thinking and language, structure academic discourse and are thought to provide learners with lexical, grammatical and rhetorical resources for dealing with the construction and communication of subject knowledge (Dalton-Puffer, 2013). They are thus es- sential learning goals to be incorporated into the curriculum. However, the way CLIL programs are currently implemented in some con- texts represents a lack of commitment to these goals. CLIL has been found to re- sult in “functional illiteracy” (Meyer et al., 2015, p. 41), with learners showing a poor command of basic discourse functions (Dalton-Puffer, 2004) or failing to ar- ticulate subject-specific concepts appropriately (Vollmer, 2008). These findings are an indication that many CLIL teachers still follow traditional, input-based, transmissional approaches in their instructional practices, conceptualize content and language as separate entities and, as a result, fail to understand that progress in the acquisition of knowledge cannot occur without the appropriate use of dis- cipline-specific discourse (Meyer et al., 2015). The adoption of a different perspec- tive on CLIL is therefore needed in which the links between content and language are strengthened through appropriate theoretical and pedagogical proposals. A relevant approach in this direction is represented by systemic functional linguistics (SFL henceforth), a social semiotic theory of language where learning is understood as “learning to mean and to expand one’s meaning potential” (Halliday, 1993, p. 113), and language as “the essential condition of knowing, the process by which experience becomes knowledge” (1993, p. 94). When ap- plied to subject-specific writing at the elementary school level, SFL has proved useful in helping teachers in Australian and North American contexts make explicit The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in . . . 599 to students the relationship between the communicative purposes and discourse functions of texts (Santiago Schwarz & Hamman-Ortiz, 2020; Schleppegrell, 2004). Comparatively, the impact of CLIL on learners’ production of cognitive discourse functions has hardly been analyzed, as CLIL research has largely been limited to contrastive studies with non-CLIL programs on the quality of texts produced by students (e.g., Artieda et al., 2017; Lahuerta, 2020). Two recent studies, however, have attempted to shed light on the academic language competence of grade 6 primary and grade 8 secondary school learners by analyzing their oral production of classification and comparison functions in L2 English and L1 Spanish in science and history (Evnitskaya & Dalton-Puffer, 2020) and their written definitions in history (Nashaat-Soby & Llinares, 2020). Both studies, informed by an SFL theory of learning, further our understanding of how CLIL learners express subject knowledge through their lexico-grammatical choices. However, neither of these studies was class- room-based and the corpus data they used was obtained by means of prompts designed specifically to elicit the targeted discourse functions. As a result, the relationship between instruction, subject knowledge and L2 writing continues to be overlooked in CLIL primary school contexts. The present study attempts to fill this gap by focusing on the teaching and learning of primary-school CLIL science. Specifically, it is intended as an SFL-informed study of the impact of in- structional scaffolding on children’s L2 written production of reports, a school genre where defining and classifying are the main cognitive discourse functions. 2. Theoretical framework The decision to look at children’s L2 writing of reports on levers was motivated by the need to address CLIL science teaching from a literacy-oriented perspec- tive. This decision was based on a theoretical assumption that conceptualizes school subjects as examples of social/community knowledge that can be more fully understood with the SFL-informed notions of genre and register. As dis- cussed below, this interpretive framework can be complemented with the no- tion of cognitive discourse functions propounded by Dalton-Puffer (2013). 2.1. An SFL-informed view of school subjects SFL provides a framework to understand the social view of subject-specific dis- course through one of its basic tenets, which holds that the construction of meaning is facilitated when we flexibly adhere to the discursive conventions pre- vailing in the community (Coetzee-Lachmann, 2007). These conventions, related both to the content to be expressed and to the different ways of expressing content, are known as “genres,” defined in SFL as “staged, goal-oriented social processes Julio Roca de Larios, Yvette Coyle, Vanessa García 600 which enact recurrent configurations of meaning and social practices in a given culture or community” (Martin & Rose, 2008, p. 6). As “goal-oriented” processes, genres point to the social functions of texts and, as “staged,” they are taken to involve different steps that must be followed to achieve particular social pur- poses (Martin & Rose, 2008). Genres are thought to materialize when people make choices from their lexico-grammatical and discursive repertoires, as well as from other semiotic re- sources (e.g., images, actions, gestures), to construct three types of functional meaning: ideational meaning, related to the representation of immediate or ab- stract experience; interpersonal meaning, oriented towards interaction with others; and textual meaning, focused on the potential of language for organizing meanings into texts (Schleppegrell, 2004). The specific realizations of these meta-func- tions, which occur simultaneously in any instance of language, are respectively affected by three situational variables, namely the field of the discourse (the topic), the tenor (the relations between participants) and the mode (the role played by language in the situation). Together, these variables constitute the “register” of texts, characterized as “a set of meanings that is appropriate to a particular func- tion of language, together with the words and structures which express these meanings” (Halliday, 1978, p. 195). When school subjects have been contemplated through the lens of these SFL core constructs, an increasing number of school genres have been identified (Martin & Rose, 2008; Rose & Martin, 2012), and their characteristic lexico-gram- matical features highlighted (Christie & Derewianka, 2008; Moore, 2019). Two basic tenets of this approach are that (i) each subject seems to involve its own genres in which knowledge is “packed,” such as, for example, reports and expla- nations in science or historical recounts in history (Morton, 2020); and (ii) the lan- guage used to construct knowledge and understanding in different subject areas, such as history, science, or mathematics, unfolds in different ways (Rose & Martin, 2012). Learning a subject from this perspective, therefore, means “being able to comprehend and produce the types of texts or genres (both oral and written) through which knowledge in the subject is communicated” (Morton, 2020, p. 9). In consonance with these assumptions, learners’ construction of scientific knowledge has been operationalized as consisting of several steps in an idealized knowledge path they are expected to traverse in their guided efforts to become familiar with the conventions of the school subject concerned (Veel, 1997). Each step in that path is taken to involve different genres that, in the case of science learning, have been conceptualized as four major activity domains, ranging from “doing things scientifically” and “organizing the world scientifically” to “explaining phenomena scientifically” and “arguing scientifically” (Polias, 2016). The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in . . . 601 Children’s development in the first three domains has respectively been ad- dressed in three emblematic studies where school teachers in the USA worked in collaboration with university researchers to guide and support English language learners’ (ELLs) writing of procedural recounts (de Oliveira & Lan, 2014), reports (Brisk et al., 2011) and explanations (Accurso et al., 2016). De Oliveira and Lan (2014) analyzed the texts produced by a focal 4th-grade child after receiving staged in- struction on writing procedural recounts. The child showed an increased ability to signal essential genre features and use more field-specific lexico-grammatical el- ements and temporal connectors to record events with more precision. In their evaluation of children’s appropriation of the report genre after receiving SFL-in- formed instruction, Brisk et al. (2011) documented the performance of selected individual learners from pre-kindergarten to fifth grade and found that these learners generally understood that the main purpose of the report was to give information and organize the texts by topic rather than chronologically. Finally, Accurso et al. (2016) reported on a 4th-grade child who, at the end of the teaching unit, was able to use genre stages typical of school-based explanations, articulate specific lexical resources on the topic, construct herself as a knowledgeable stu- dent, and write more precisely and with greater cohesion. 2.2. CLIL science learning: The role of cognitive discourse functions Taken as a whole, these studies have shown that ELLs, with the help of SFL-based pedagogies, were able to interpret the world in increasingly scientific ways by en- gaging in relevant school genres. Similarly, children’s development of scientific knowledge in CLIL contexts can be interpreted as their ability to construct mean- ing in the specific genres and registers of school science, which they must gradu- ally differentiate from everyday language use (Coetzee-Lachmann, 2007; Forey, 2020). However, the attested functional illiteracy of learners in CLIL contexts which, as suggested in the introduction, derives from instructional practices fo- cused separately on content and language, demands that attention is paid not only to genre stages and associated linguistic features (as has been the case with the studies on ELLs discussed above) but also to the cognitive operations that, together with their corresponding linguistic realizations, students activate to re- member, analyze, apply and communicate content knowledge. These operations, which have been regarded as organizing frames or building blocks for learners to develop subject literacy, are taken to give CLIL teachers the opportunity of clarify- ing learning and teaching goals and, therefore, provide a “focused and principled integration of content, literacy and language” (Morton, 2020, p. 11). Although cognitive operations have been classified in many different ways in the world of education, Dalton-Puffer (2013) has reduced them to seven types Julio Roca de Larios, Yvette Coyle, Vanessa García 602 of cognitive discourse functions in the context of CLIL (i.e., classifying, defining, describing, evaluating, explaining, exploring and reporting). Situated at an inter- mediate level of granularity as compared to the higher levels of genres and reg- isters, CDFs are taken to represent those classroom discourse patterns that “make (disciplinary) thought processes intersubjectively accessible and thus available for learning” (Dalton-Puffer, 2013, p. 230). They provide learners with schemata (discoursal, lexical and grammatical) for the task of “handling and act- ing upon curricular concepts, content and facts” (p. 231), although their generic and non-essentialist nature means that their meanings are not unitary and sta- ble. Rather, they should be understood as networks that show wide variability in the ways they are realized and/or specified in local contexts. Bearing these considerations in mind, we have focused our study on the design, implementation and analysis of a teaching unit on the report genre in a specific CLIL context by drawing on SFL-informed approaches to literacy and turning to CDFs as another conceptual framework. An immediate consequence of this approach is that, in order to instruct learners to engage in CDFs and ame- liorate functional illiteracy in CLIL contexts as a result, teachers must be helped to move from transmission modes of teaching content to other modes progres- sively oriented to students’ guided and autonomous production of integrated content and language (Meyer et al., 2015). One important means to this end is the teaching-learning cycle (TLC), a recursive pedagogical process consisting of a series of stages that provide a model for teachers to implement literacy in- struction (Accurso et al., 2016). Through these stages, students are gradually guided from initial teacher-led analyses of mentor texts in the target genre (de- construction) and collaboration with the teacher in the production of joint texts (joint construction) to their autonomous control of text writing (independent construction). Students are expected to build their content knowledge through each of these stages with the guidance and feedback received from the teacher (Humphrey & McNaught, 2015). The efficacy of the TLC as an instructional ap- proach in primary school contexts has been shown in both qualitative (e.g., de Oliveira & Lan, 2014, de Oliveira et al., 2020) and interventionist (e.g., Parkin, 2014) research. In the present study, an adaptation of the TLC is employed as an essential methodological procedure. 2.3. The present study The present study builds on the above suggestions in a project where university researchers and a CLIL primary school teacher collaborated in the planning and implementation of literacy activities informed by SFL and CDFs, which were in- tended to support EFL children’s learning of science language and content. We The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in . . . 603 designed a unit of instruction in which the lessons provided the children with opportunities and support for writing reports on levers, a central topic within the Spanish science curriculum in primary education. The main aim of the study was, therefore, to determine the usefulness of this instructional approach by describing the functional and linguistic features of the reports written by the children after instruction. 2.4. The report genre The main purpose of the report genre is to present meanings constructed by others (usually experts) who have done some kind of research on a topic (Polias, 2010). Reports are expected to provide information by describing attributes, properties or behaviors of an entity or class (Fang & Wang, 2011), and organizing data clearly and succinctly (Schleppegrell, 2004). In consonance, reports usually present a relatively static organization which is considered essential to help learners describe and classify the phenomena studied. As a school genre, reports consist of three main stages: a general opening statement, followed by modules of factual information grouped by topic, and con- cluded with an optional general statement (Brisk et al., 2011; Christie & Derewianka, 2008). Defined in this way, reports may be thought of as having classifying and defining as their main CDFs (Dalton-Puffer, 2013). According to Evnitskaya and Dalton-Puffer (2020), classifications may vary around three basic parameters which include direction (whether the member to be classified is introduced be- fore the class it belongs to or vice versa), basis (the criteria on which the similari- ties and differences between members constituting the classification are estab- lished), and completeness (whether all three previous elements, that is, member, class and basis of classification, are present or one of them is absent). Definitions, in turn, are usually realized by including class membership and specifying those features (qualities, circumstances, etc.) that distinguish the target term from other terms (Nashaat-Sobhy & Llinares, 2020), although the writer may also pro- vide additional information by means of expansions, which include examples, clarifications, extensions or explanations (Nashaat-Sobhy & Llinares, 2020). As shown below, we have used this description of classifications and definitions to characterize children’s reports on levers from a functional perspective. When viewed from a register perspective, reports are seen to involve four types of meaning (Fang & Wang, 2011) which are presented in Table 1 (adapted to fit the topic of levers). Julio Roca de Larios, Yvette Coyle, Vanessa García 604 Table 1 Functional features of reports (adapted from Fang & Wang, 2011) Types of meaning Definition Lexico-grammatical choices to express meaning Experiential meaning The content being defined and classi- fied. It consists of processes (what is go- ing on), participants (who or what is in- volved), and circumstances (where, when, how, with whom, etc.). - Processes: mainly relational verbs (to be, to have, there is, etc.), and occasional action verbs (push, etc.). - Participants: mainly technical vocabulary (fulcrum, effort, etc.) and complex noun phrases (three types of levers, a type of simple machine, etc.). - Circumstances: adverbials and prepositional phrases (in the middle, on a fixed point, etc.). Logical meaning The logical and dependency relations between clauses. - Simple clauses (the load is the heavy part of the lever, etc.). - Complex clauses (e.g., we need to look at what is in the middle, the effort is where a thing or a man put the effort, etc.). - Non-finite clauses (to identify levers, etc.). - Logical connectors (because, but, etc.). The combination of experiential and logical meaning forms the ideational meta-function of the report which, in turn, deter- mines the scientific value of clauses, that is, whether or not the student displays knowledge of levers that is acceptable to the scientific community. Interpersonal meaning The way the relationship between the writer and the reader is established. - Predominance of the declarative mood, with low mo- dality and absence of appraisal features, which means: (i) use of objective, formal language, (ii) consideration of the writer as somebody who “knows” about the topic reported. Textual meaning How textual coherence is achieved. - Mechanisms of thematic progression and referential ties (pronouns, lexical cohesion, etc.). Given that the weight of what gets defined, classified or compared in re- ports lies in the ideational meta-function in its double consideration of experi- ential and logical meaning-making, we focused on children’s knowledge con- struction of levers by looking at how they functionally developed that knowledge through the clauses they produced in their written texts. Accordingly, the following research questions were formulated: RQ1: How do 4th-year children engage in defining and classifying when writ- ing reports on levers in a CLIL science class after receiving instruction on the development of these CDFs? RQ2: What ideational meaning-making resources are used by these children to express those functions? 3. Method 3.1. Context and participants The study was conducted in a state primary school in a middle-class area located in southeast Spain. The participants were 48 4th-year children, aged from nine to ten, divided into two mixed-ability classes taught by the same teacher. As participants The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in . . . 605 in a CLIL program, the children had been receiving five English sessions and two CLIL Science sessions every week from their 1st year of primary education. The teacher had been teaching English and CLIL at a primary-school level for more than ten years, held an MA in bilingual education and had taken in- service courses on teaching CLIL. In one of these courses, promoted by the local education authority, she was introduced to SFL principles and related empirical research and became highly interested in the application of this methodology to her own teaching. To that end, she contacted two researchers, former pro- fessors of hers (the first two authors of the paper), with the purpose of collabo- rating in the design and implementation of a project on CLIL science teaching. After deliberating on the chronology, methodology and content to be taught, a series of decisions was jointly taken (see below). 3.2. Instructional sequence In line with the science curriculum, the decision to focus on levers was based on the content the teacher was expected to cover at the time of the study. This content in- cluded the characterization of levers as simple machines, the description of their parts, and their classification into different types. The teacher, in collaboration with the researchers, divided the instructional intervention into two main parts. The first part was intended to build the field by drawing on children’s knowledge of levers and gradually familiarizing them with their characteristics and types (four one-hour ses- sions), while the second part was focused on teaching the writing of reports (another four one-hour sessions). Throughout this two-stage process, the children’s written production was scaffolded from initial item-based writing to the autonomous produc- tion of texts. Along the way, the teacher made use of talk as a propaedeutic for writing (e.g., Christie & Derewianka, 2008) through “dialogic inquiry,” which involved the use of appropriate questions (Valverde Caravaca, 2019), and “class discussions,” that is, exchanges of meanings and ideas with the children (Dawes et al., 2010). 3.2.1. Building the field Initially, the children were given several sets of pictures representing different objects (levers) and were asked to identify their similarities. The aim of this ini- tial activity was to encourage them to use criteria to classify the objects and allow the teacher to elicit their scientific knowledge of levers, which turned out to be inexistent. In fact, the children did not use the term lever in any case but relied mostly on their L2 and L1 to describe the objects presented (e.g., crow- bars, oars and scissors), suggest what they were used for, or claim that they did not resemble one another (see the example in Figure 1). Julio Roca de Larios, Yvette Coyle, Vanessa García 606 Figure 1 Identification of similarities between different objects Having collected this information, the teacher’s aim was to help the chil- dren understand the characteristics and types of levers through activities that in- cluded (i) analyzing video presentations and texts; (ii) building bridges between familiar everyday knowledge and unfamiliar scientific content by asking children to identify levers in their nearby environment; (iii) encouraging children to pro- duce appropriate scientific terms to identify parts and types of levers, such as the position of effort, fulcrum or load; and (iv) making sure children were not dis- tracted by the size and appearance of levers in their attempts to classify them. To check their knowledge after completing these activities in the four one- hour sessions (see above), the children were given (one one-hour session) the initial set of pictures again, as well as a problem-solving activity in which they were asked to classify pictures of levers and give reasons for their choices (see Figure 2). While the outcomes of these activities were checked in class, the teacher elicited examples of levers that, despite differences in size and appear- ance, belonged to the same group. Figure 2 Classification of levers and reasons for the choice Although specific SFL terminology was not explicitly introduced, its im- plicit use in the abovementioned activities (e.g., “fulcrum,” “effort,” “load,” as in- stances of participants; “is,” “have,” as instances of processes; or “in the middle,” The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in . . . 607 “on one end,” “between . . . and . . .” as instances of circumstances) allowed the teacher to make sure that the children were reasonably familiar with the con- cepts and terms involved in the definition and classification of levers. 3.2.2. Focusing on reports Once the field had been built to a reasonable extent, writing instruction began. The teaching sequence employed was largely inspired by the teaching-learning cycle (Martin & Rose, 2008), although an initial model text was not used in this case (see de Oliveira & Lan, 2014 for alternative procedures to initiate the TLC). The children had analyzed two model reports and used a graphic organizer for guided writing in a previous unit on states of matter, and the teacher expected them to have some prior knowledge of the way descriptions and classifications are expressed in this genre. With those assumptions in mind, the children’s transition from supported to autonomous writing was scaffolded with a series of activities that included the use of graphic organizers, guided writing, teacher feedback and autonomous writing (see Figure 3). Figure 3 Scaffolding stages in teaching report writing In the first session of writing instruction (see Figure 3), the teacher presented a graphic organizer intended to adapt the defining and classifying CDFs involved in the report genre (see above) to the specifics of the field previously built (levers) and the children’s levels of knowledge and L2 proficiency. The organizer, therefore, consisted of a series of prompts and blanks related to a number of functional subcategories which included the definition of levers and their parts as the basis for their classifica- tion in types, the definition of each type, and the comparison of levers in terms of size and appearance by way of conclusion. Expansions in the form of examples were also Julio Roca de Larios, Yvette Coyle, Vanessa García 608 included in various sections (see Figure 4). After explaining the meaning and functions of the prompts and suggesting alternatives through sentence modeling on how the blanks might be filled in, the children were asked to complete a draft in pairs using the organizer as a resource. The texts produced were collected by the teacher to iden- tify those aspects in need of feedback. Definition: Levers are …………………………………………………………………………………… Main parts or levers. There are three parts in ………………………….………….…………………… Definition of each part. The fulcrum is ………………………………………………………………… Announcing types of levers. There are …………………………………………………………………. Criteria to classify levers. The identification of each type depends on ………………………...……….. Characteristics of 1st type levers ………………….……… Examples …………………….. Characteristics of 2nd type levers .………………………… Examples …………………….. Characteristics of 3rd type levers ………………………….. Examples …………………….. Conclusion. Many levers are different in size and appearance, but they belong to the same group. For example, the ……………, the ……………….., and the ………………… different, but they ………………………… group, because …………………………………………………………… The ………………….., the ……………………, and the ……………………. also look different, but ………………………………….……………, because ……………….………………………………… Figure 4 Textual graphic organizer for writing a report on levers In the following session, each pair was given back their text so that they could compare it with the feedback now provided by the teacher to the whole class. The teacher alternatively showed on the whiteboard three of the 24 texts produced by the pairs and used them as input sources to elicit information from the children on: 1) the different functional subcategories covered, as in: T: In this text, have levers been classified in three classes? S: Yes, class 1, class 2 and class 3 T: and the last paragraph comparing levers on their size and appearance, has it been in- cluded? SS: No, no T: Remember that you have to include all the information on the different parts of the diagram (graphic organizer) 2) the scientific validity of certain clauses regardless of the linguistic problems they might involve, as in: T: And this text says that “in class two, the load is in the middle.” Is it correct? S: No, because “middle” has only one “d” T: Right, but one thing is the definition, which is correct, is true, isn’t it? S: Yes The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in . . . 609 T: Why is it true? S: Because the load is in the middle T: And another thing is that there is a spelling mistake here (points to the word *midle on the WB). Do you understand? S: Yes 3) the separation of ideas with appropriate paragraphing and/or punctuation, as in: T. Have these children written a full stop after the definition of levers? SS: No, no T: and do you think that they have to write one? S: Yes, because the definition is different, different that the types of levers, is different T: Yes, it is a different idea. So, first “a lever is a type of simple machine,” then a full stop, and then, starting with a capital letter, “There are different types of levers” When needed, the teacher also suggested occasional lexico-grammatical alter- natives to be used in the appropriate places. In the next session, each child was given the same graphic organizer and asked to individually write a draft based on it. Once completed, the teacher provided writ- ten feedback in the form of comments on each individual text. The feedback pro- vided mostly consisted of (i) focusing children’s attention on the functional catego- ries they had not addressed in their texts (e.g., “you have not included the criteria used to classify levers”) and (ii) showing them how to formulate full clauses as an alternative to writing in note form (e.g., “Some examples of first type levers are the seesaw . . .” rather than “Examples 1st type: seesaw . . .”). Less frequently, the teacher evaluated the scientific validity of some examples (e.g., “a wheelbarrow is not an example of a first-class lever”), corrected spelling mistakes (“which” rather than “with;” “between” rather than “behind;” “stick” rather than “stich”) and reminded a few children to follow the textual structure in the graphic organizer rather than writ- ing in bulleted points (e.g., “you have to follow the diagram”). In the fourth and final session, the annotated texts were returned to the children, who individually rewrote their reports incorporating the feedback provided by the teacher as far as possible. Three weeks after rewriting their guided texts, the teacher spent one ses- sion refreshing the children’s knowledge of levers and the textual structure of reports. In the next session, each child was asked to independently write a re- port, following this prompt: Write a composition on levers in which you have to: – Give a definition of levers (and their parts). – Describe the different types of levers and give examples of each type. – Say that levers with different size and appearance may be of the same type, and give examples. Julio Roca de Larios, Yvette Coyle, Vanessa García 610 The prompt was based on the belief that the three content goals it included might facilitate the children’s retrieval of information from their long-term memory (Klein et al., 2017). 3.3. Data analysis The texts produced by the children in this final session (N = 48) were collected for the analysis of their functional structure and ideational meaning. In conso- nance with the way report writing had been scaffolded by the teacher, the fol- lowing functional subcategories of defining and classifying CDFs were analyzed: – Definition of levers: 1) defining. – Parts of levers: 2) naming parts; 3) defining parts. – Types of levers: 4) announcing types; 5) giving classification criteria; 6) defining each type; 7) giving examples of each type. – Conclusion: 8) providing a claim; 9) giving contrasting examples. The clause was used as the basic unit in which (i) these functional subcategories were embodied, and (ii) the different lexico-grammatical resources used by the children to express ideational meaning became apparent (see Table 1). We did not take into account accuracy, punctuation or spelling mistakes in the analyses of clauses because, together with Brisk et al. (2011), we considered these di- mensions to be part of learners’ general writing development rather than spe- cific to the report genre. On the basis of these decisions, we identified a number of variations in the clauses produced by the children which ranged from simple and complex clauses (including coordinate and subordinate clauses) to a few cases in which translanguaging was used. These variations, together with the lexico-grammat- ical resources used in each case, their scientific value and the functional subcat- egories concerned, are illustrated in the examples below. Example 1: A lever is a type of simple machine. Logical meaning: simple clause. Experiential meaning: (i) process expressed with a rela- tional verb (“is”); (ii) participants expressed with an expanded noun including a preposi- tional group (“type of simple machine”) plus technical vocabulary (“lever,” “simple ma- chine”). Correct scientific value. One functional subcategory involved: defining levers. Example 2: Levers are simple machines and have three elements: fulcrum, load and effort. Logical meaning: coordinate complex clause, consisting of two main clauses (“Levers are simple machines,” “have three elements: fulcrum, load and effort”) and a connector (“and”). Experiential meaning: (ii) processes expressed with relational verbs (“are,” The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in . . . 611 “have”); (iii) participants expressed with technical vocabulary (“levers,” “simple ma- chines,” “fulcrum,” “load,” effort”) and an expanded nominal group in which fulcrum, load and effort are the specifications of elements (“elements: fulcrum, load and ef- fort”). Correct scientific value. Two functional subcategories involved: defining levers and naming their parts. Example 3: A scissors is class 1 because the fulcrum is in the middle. Logical meaning: subordinate complex clause including a main clause (“a scissors is Class1”), a subordinate clause of reason (“because the fulcrum is in the middle”) and a connector (“because”). Experiential meaning: (ii) processes expressed with relational verbs (“is,” “is”); (iii) participants expressed with technical vocabulary (“scissors,” “class 1,” “fulcrum;” and (iii) circumstances expressed with a prepositional phrase (“in the middle”). Correct scientific value. Functional subcategory involved: giving examples of each type of levers. Example 4: A low (load) is the part you are empujar (push) this cosa (thing). Logical meaning: subordinate complex clause including a main clause (“a low is the part”) and a subordinate defining clause with an elliptical relative pronoun (“(that) you are empujar this cosa”). Experiential meaning: (ii) processes expressed with a relational (“is”) and an action verb (“empujar”); (iii) participants expressed with eve- ryday terms in L2 (“low”) and L1 (“empujar,” “cosa”). Incorrect scientific value. Func- tional subcategory involved: defining parts of levers. With these variations in mind, the analysis of all the texts produced by the children was conducted by the two researchers under the principles of collaborative coding (Smagorinsky, 2008). This involved the use of a systematic comparison and contrast approach intended to refine, if needed, the categories previously estab- lished with the aim of capturing the nature of the individually produced texts. Dis- crepancies between the two coders were resolved through discussion until com- plete agreement was achieved. Eventually, 449 clauses were identified in the aggre- gate of all texts. The specifics of this global figure are reported in the next section. 4. Results In response to the first research question, the analysis of the functional subcat- egories covered by the children showed that four main learner profiles could be distinguished. As shown in Table 2, individual learners within each profile in- cluded different information in their texts: from up to three subcategories by each child in profile one (P1, henceforth) and five in P2, to up to seven subcate- gories in P3 and nine (the maximum) in P 4. In line with these individual results, the number of functional subcategories covered by each profile as a group also increased gradually from four by P1 as a group, and seven by P2, to eight by P3, and nine subcategories by P9. Julio Roca de Larios, Yvette Coyle, Vanessa García 612 Table 2 Children’s profiles in coverage of subcategories Profiles (N = number of children) Subcategories covered by each child Subcategories covered by each profile as a group Profile 1 (N = 11) Up to 3 subcategories Defining levers, announcing types of levers, defining types and giving examples of types (4 subcategories) Profile 2 (N = 15) Up to 5 subcategories All of the above plus naming parts of levers, criteria for classification in types and claim in conclusion (7 subcategories) Profile 3 (N = 15) Up to 7 subcategories All of the above plus giving examples in the conclusion (8 subcategories) Profile 4 (N = 7) Up to 9 subcategories All the above plus defining parts of levers (9 subcategories) Two examples are provided below as an illustration of the different sub- categories (in brackets) covered by children in Profiles 1 and 4. Example 5: Profile 1 a lever is a type of machine examples: sisors, hammer and sisaw. (Defining with examples) has three types: class 1, class 2 and class 3. (Announcing types of levers) class 1: is the fulcrum is between the effort and the load. class 2: is the load between the effort and the fulcrum. class 3: is the effort in the middle. (Defining each type) Example 6: Profile 4 Levers are simple machines (Defining) and they have three parts: the fulcrum, the load and the efford. (Naming parts of levers) The fulcrum is the part that is stil, the part that doesn’t move. The efford is where a person do things with an object. The load is the wight of an object. (Defining each part) There are three tipes of levers. (Announcing types of levers) To identify the class we need to look what is in the middle. (Providing a criterium to classify levers) Class 1: in class one the fulcrum is in the middle and the load and efford are in the sizes. Some examples are: the seesaaw, a botele oupener, some scissors… Class 2: in class tow the load is in the middle and the efford and the fulcrum are in thye sizes. Some examples are: a schoolbag, a weel barrow… Class 3; in class three the efford is in the middle and tye fulcrum and the load are in the sizes. Some examples are: a broom, a hockey stick… (Describing and giving exam- ples of each type) Simple machines can be very different but some of them are levers and they can be of the same class. (Providing a conclusion claim) Some examples are: a seesaw and a botele opener of class 1, a schoolbag and a weel barrow of class 2, a broom and a hockey stick of class 3. (Giving examples of the claim) The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in . . . 613 The answer to the second research question, which inquired about the ideational meaning-making resources used by the children to write their reports, was addressed by taking the clause as the unit of analysis. On this premise, we sought to identify if there were quantitative differences between the profiles identified above in the (i) scientific value of their clauses, the number of (ii) sim- ple and (iii) complex clauses produced, and (iv) the use of complex clauses. For the analyses of (i), (ii) and (iii), Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney non-paramet- ric tests were used. As shown in Figure 5, the percentage of scientifically correct clauses pro- duced by Profile 1 (M = 79.73, SD = 3.22) was noticeably inferior to the percent- ages of the other groups (Profile 2: M = 92.07, SD = 2.46; Profile 3: M = 92.47, SD = 2.03; Profile 4: M = 93.29, SD = 2.28). These differences were confirmed by a Kruskall-Wallis test showing overall significant differences among the groups (χ² = 25.82, p = .00). A subsequent Mann-Whitney test identified this significance in the differences between Profiles 1 and 2 (U = .00, Z = -4.28, p = .00), 1 and 3 (U = .00, Z = -4.29, p = .00), and 1 and 4 (U = .00, Z = -3.49; p = .01). No significant differences between other profiles were found. Figure 5 Percentages of conceptually correct clauses by profile As shown in Figure 6, the average number of simple clauses produced by Profile 1 (M = 4.27, SD = 1.61) was almost doubled by the other three profiles, in which the children produced around eight simple clauses each (Profile 2: M = 7.73, SD = 1.71; Profile 3: M = 8.27, SD = 3.01; Profile 4: M = 8.29, SD = 3.03). These differences were confirmed by a Kruskall-Wallis test which showed overall significant differences among the groups (χ² = 15.86, p = .00). A subsequent Mann-Whitney test identified this significance in the differences between Pro- files 1 and 2 (U = 12.00, Z = -3.71, p = .00), 1 and 3 (U = 23.50, Z = -3.09, p = .01), and 1 and 4 (U = 11, Z = -2.54; p = .01). No other significant differences between other profiles were found. 70 75 80 85 90 95 Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Profile 4 Julio Roca de Larios, Yvette Coyle, Vanessa García 614 Figure 6 Average number of simple clauses across profiles A gradual and significant increase in children’s performance was apparent when their complex clauses were analyzed. As shown in Figure 7, the average production of these clauses steadily increased from M = 0.27 (SD = 0.64) and M = 1.40 (SD = 1.24) by children in P1 and P2, respectively, to M = 2.60 (SD = 1.64) by P3, and was almost doubled (M = 5.14, SD = 2.19) by the children in P4. These descriptive patterns were globally confirmed by a Kruskall-Wallis test indicating overall significant differences among groups (χ² = 27.98; p = .00), and subse- quently corroborated by a Mann-Whitney test which found significant differ- ences between P1 and P2 (U = 31.50, Z = -2.83; p = .01), P1 and P3 (U = 8.500, Z = -3.96, p = .00), P1 and P4 (U = .00, Z = -3.72, p = .00), P2 and P4 (U = 5.00, Z = -3.41, p = .00), and between P3 and P4 (U = 15.50, Z = -2.67, p = .01). Therefore, the only groups that did not show significant differences in the production of complex sentences were P2 and P3 when they were compared to each other. Figure 7 Average number of complex clauses across profiles Given these differences, we wondered how these complex clauses were used by the children across the different functional subcategories covered in their texts. Table 3 shows the five subcategories in which complex clauses (to- gether with unreported simple clauses) were differentially used by the groups. Table 3 also shows the remaining four categories, which were only addressed by means of simple clauses. 0 2 4 6 8 10 Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Profile 4 0 2 4 6 Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Profile 4 The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in . . . 615 Table 3 Use of complex clause by functional subcategory Functional subcategories Use of complex clauses (together with unreported simple clauses) Profiles Defining levers Yes All profiles Naming parts Defining parts Yes Profile 4 Announcing types Giving a criterium Yes Profiles 2, 3 & 4 Defining types Giving examples of types Giving a conclusion claim Yes Profiles 2, 3 & 4 Giving examples Yes Profiles 3 & 4 5. Discussion The present study analyzed the effects of a teaching unit intended to raise 4th- year primary-school CLIL learners’ awareness of the demands involved in under- standing and expressing in writing the main characteristics of levers. The data showed that around 75% of the children (Profiles 2, 3 and 4 together) managed to develop their knowledge of the subject matter and to communicate that knowledge following the conventions of the report genre. These results were greatly dependent on the SFL-informed nature of the unit and the fact that chil- dren’s attention was drawn to the CDFs of defining and classifying as building blocks they could use to develop their subject literacy skills (see Morton, 2020). Crucial pedagogical strategies in this development were the transition from graphic organizers to guided writing and the provision of feedback by the teacher on the texts produced by the children. As shown in the examples above, this feedback revolved around the integration of content and language, since it was mostly focused on the functional subcategories to be covered, the distinc- tion between scientific validity and the formal characteristics of clauses, the tex- tual value of paragraphing and punctuation, and the need to write full clauses rather than notes. The convergence of all these instructional elements eventu- ally allowed the children to express, with varying degrees of success, their knowledge of the topic through subject-specific language, that is, define, classify and exemplify different parts and types of levers by means of simple and com- plex clauses. These findings indicate that a focus on the ideational function of language to make meaning may enable young learners to express their science knowledge in writing (Hodgson-Drysdale, 2014; Schleppegrell, 2004). More generally, the study provides novel evidence to suggest that writing instruction combining attention to genre and disciplinary language by means of cognitive discourse functions can scaffold children’s integration of language, content and literacy knowledge in a CLIL context. This integration was achieved Julio Roca de Larios, Yvette Coyle, Vanessa García 616 through the implementation of adequate pedagogical procedures, and may be interpreted as an alternative to the “functional illiteracy” issue (Meyer et al., 2015). As suggested in the introduction, functional illiteracy has been associated with the prioritization of content over language in CLIL contexts on the assump- tion that learning general lexico-grammatical features and discipline-related lan- guage occurs naturally when content is taught through the target language (Hu & Gao, 2021). These findings also complement research in elementary-school con- texts in the US, where a growing number of studies have shown that raising chil- dren’s awareness of the linguistic and structural features of school genres can help them express their disciplinary content knowledge by producing increasingly complex genre-specific texts (see Santiago Schwarz & Hamman-Ortiz, 2020). However, as a counterpoint to this positive effect of instruction, the data also showed that Profile 1 children, as compared to the other groups, addressed fewer functional subcategories (not more than four as a group), produced signifi- cantly fewer simple and complex clauses, and displayed less content knowledge. As a possible explanation for these findings, the teacher suggested that these chil- dren generally showed low levels of L2 oral comprehension in class and that some had important reasoning and memorization problems. They appeared to have lit- tle interest in any stimulus that required cognitive effort and had to be assiduously required to pay attention. Similar negative findings have also been reported by Hermansson et al. (2019) in an SFL-informed study intended to assess the effects of the joint construction stage of the TLC on the quality of L1 narrative texts pro- duced by Swedish primary-school children. The low achievers in this study showed very little improvement in the quality of their texts, and the authors speculated that this might have been due to their limited working memory capacity, which did not allow them to process and update the information continuously delivered by the teacher and other class members while engaged in interactive metacogni- tive talk. A similar difficulty in processing information might have been experi- enced by Profile 1 children in our study in the different episodes of dialogic inquiry and discussion occurring in the teaching sequence (see the method section). As a result, they benefitted very little from the scaffolding provided in class when faced with writing their reports independently. These variable effects of CLIL instruction should be viewed in connection with the need to ensure that over- and under-achievers alike may benefit from CLIL programs, especially after claims about their lack of equity have been voiced (e.g., Bruton, 2013). Different European studies on stakeholders’ percep- tions of CLIL programs have stressed that attention to diversity is a key challenge for practitioners and administrators to address (e.g., Pérez Cañado, 2016). De- spite the infancy of the field, both general and specific lines of action have been suggested for this purpose, such as the provision of instruction through flexible The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in . . . 617 groupings, the negotiation of joint intervention strategies with parents as a function of students’ attitudes and capabilities, or the use of continuous feed- back (Madrid & Pérez Cañado, 2018). Other proposals include the implementa- tion of specific teacher education programs that incorporate theoretical frame- works and evidence-based practice especially geared to cope with student di- versity (More et al., 2016). 6. Concluding remarks Given the promising results of our exploratory study with young EFL learners, we suggest that a similar approach to writing instruction might be usefully adopted in CLIL primary school science classes to strengthen children’s knowledge of the associations between content and language. This seems important, given the mixed findings so far reported about the impact of CLIL science programs on learning outcomes in comparison to L1 programs (Fernández-Sanjurjo et al., 2017), the limited attention paid to language in CLIL classes as opposed to the concerns shown by teachers to ensure that children cover the vast amount of content in- cluded in science curricula (López-Ramón, 2015), and the fact that children’s writ- ing is undervalued as a site for language learning (Coyle & Cánovas Guirao, 2019). Yet, available scholarship on CLIL writing in secondary-school contexts has af- forded detailed longitudinal data documenting the gradual emergence of idea- tional, interpersonal and textual features in high-school learners’ history essays (McCabe & Whittaker, 2016; Whittaker & McCabe, 2020). Although these stud- ies, as noted above, did not include an instructional intervention explicitly aimed at teaching disciplinary language or genre-specific writing, the authors have acknowledged the importance of “making explicit the language for subject liter- acy” (Whittaker & McCabe, 2020, p. 327). In this sense, the present study offers encouraging results for the application of such an instructional approach in CLIL education with younger learners. In this application, different avenues for further research might be con- templated. The effects of the present intervention have only been explored in terms of outcome, that is, the final texts produced by the children. A more pro- cess-oriented approach might analyze how children transition between each stage of the TLC cycle not only in terms of experiential and logical meanings but also of interpersonal and textual features. This set of functional categories, in their double dimension of teaching and analytical tools, could be shared with teachers and spark further studies on other genres, for more extended periods of time and bearing in mind children’s cognitive processes and individual char- acteristics. The categories could also be used to understand how multimodal resources are used in CLIL classes to achieve the highest degree of “pedagogical Julio Roca de Larios, Yvette Coyle, Vanessa García 618 resonance” (Polias, 2010). Finally, SFL-informed professional development pro- grams aimed to integrate the implementation of curricular genres with atten- tion to student diversity might be enacted and explored through university- school partnerships involving iterative cycles of exploration, research design and reflection (Santiago Schwarz & Hamman-Ortiz, 2020). Acknowledgements This study was funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Re- search grant PID2019-104353GB-I00). The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in . . . 619 References Accurso, K., Gebhard, M., & Selden, C. (2016). Supporting L2 elementary science writing with SFL in an age of school reform. In L. C. de Oliveira & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing in elementary classrooms: Instructional issues, con- tent-area writing and teacher education (pp. 126-150). Palgrave Macmillan. Artieda, G., Roquet, H., & Nicolas Conesa, F. (2017). The impact of age and expo- sure on EFL achievement in two learning contexts: Formal instruction and formal instruction + content and language integrated learning (CLIL). In- ternational Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(4), 1-19. https://doi.org/10/1080/13670050.2017.1373059 Brisk, M. E., Hodgson-Drysdale, T., & O’Connor, C. (2011). A study of a collabo- rative instructional project informed by systemic functional linguistic the- ory: Report writing in elementary grades. Journal of Education, 191(1), 1- 12. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741119100102 Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41(3), 587-597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2013.07.001 Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. Continuum. Coetzee-Lachmann, D. (2007). Assessment of subject-specific task performance of bilingual geography learners: Analyzing aspects of subject-specific writ- ten discourse (Doctoral dissertation, Osnabrück University). http://webdo c.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/dissts/Osnabrueck/Coetzee-Lachmann2009.pdf Coyle, Y., & Cánovas Guirao, J. (2019). Learning to write in a second language. The role of guided interaction in promoting children’s interaction from model texts. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.22 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2004). Academic language functions in content and language integrated classrooms: Defining and hypothesizing. Vienna English Work- ing Papers, 13, 23-48. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptu- alizing content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Euro- pean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 1-38. 216-253. https://doi.org/10. 1515/eujal-2013-0011 Dawes, L., Dore, B., Loxley, P., & Nicholls, L. (2010). A talk focus for promoting en- joyment and developing understanding in science. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(2), 99-110. http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/ id/eprint/3444 Julio Roca de Larios, Yvette Coyle, Vanessa García 620 de Oliveira, L. C., & Lan, S. W. (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: A genre-based approach to teaching English language learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 23-39. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.jslw.2014.05.001 de Oliveira, L. C., Jones, L., & Smith, L. C. (2020). Interactional scaffolding in a “first-grade” classroom through the teaching-learning cycle. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1798867 Evnitskaya, N., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions in CLIL classrooms: Eliciting and analyzing students’ oral categorizations in sci- ence and history. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilin- gualism https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1804824 Fang, Z., & Wang, Z. (2011). Beyond rubrics: Using functional language analysis to evaluate student writing. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34, 147- 165. http://doi.org/school.discoveryeducation.com/schrockguide/assess.html Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2017). Analyz- ing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142 Forey, G. (2020). A whole school approach to SFL metalanguage and the explicit teaching of language for curriculum learning. Journal of English for Aca- demic Purposes, 44, 100822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100822 Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(93)90026-7 Hermansson, C., B. Jonsson, M. Levlin, A. Lindhé, B. Lundgren, & Shaswar, N. A. (2019). The (non)effect of joint construction in a genre-based approach to teaching writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(4), 483-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1563038 Hodgson-Drysdale, T. (2014). Concepts and language: Developing knowledge in science. Linguistics and Education, 27, 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.linged.2014.07.004 Hu, J., & Gao, X. (2021). Understanding subject teachers’ language-related pedagogical practices in content and language integrated learning classrooms. Language Awareness, 30(1), 42-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1768265 Humphrey, S., & MacNaught, L. (2015). Functional language instruction and the writing growth of English language learners in the middle years. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 792-816. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.247 Klein, P., Haug, K., & Arcon, N. (2017). The effects of rhetorical and content sub- goals on writing and learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(2), 291-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1143795 The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in . . . 621 Lahuerta, A. (2020). Analysis of accuracy in the writing of EFL students enrolled on CLIL and non-CLIL programmes: The impact of grade and gender. The Language Learning Journal, 48(2), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/095 71736.2017.1303745 López-Ramón, M. J. (2015). Exploring the dialogic classroom interaction and de- velopment of content knowledge in a CLIL and L1 primary science class- room (Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Murcia). Madrid, D., & Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). Innovations and challenges in attend- ing to diversity through CLIL. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 241-249. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1492237 Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. Equinox. McCabe, A., & Whittaker, R. (2016). Genre and appraisal in CLIL history texts: Developing the voice of the historian. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 105-124). John Benjamins. Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning: Mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curricu- lum, 28(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924 Moore, J. (2019). Choice and constraint: Using SLF genre theory to teach primary- grade students to write arguments about literature. Journal of Writing Re- search, 10(3), 429-464. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.10.03.02 More, C. M., Spies, T. G., Morgan, J. J., & Baker, J. N. (2016). Incorporating English language learner instruction within special education teacher preparation. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(4), 229-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1053451215589183 Morton, T. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions: A bridge between content, lit- eracy and language for teaching and assessment in CLIL. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 3(1), 7-27. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.33 Nashaat-Sobhy, N., & Llinares, A. (2020). CLIL students’ definitions of historical terms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1798868 Parkin, B. M. (2014). Scaffolding science: A pedagogy for marginalized students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Adelaide, Australia). https://hekyll. services.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/91443/3/02whole.pdf Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016). Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a Euro- pean study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 202-221. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1138104 Polias, J. (2010). Pedagogical resonance: Improving teaching and learning. Spe- cial Issue of NALDIC Quarterly, 42-49. Julio Roca de Larios, Yvette Coyle, Vanessa García 622 Polias, J. (2016). Apprenticing students into science: Doing, talking & writing sci- entifically. Lexis Education. Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge, and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox. Santiago Schwarz, V., & Hamman-Ortiz, L. (2020). Systemic functional linguistics, teacher education, and writing outcomes for U.S. elementary English learners: A review of the literature. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100727 Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum. Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in con- structing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308317815 Valverde Caravaca, R. (2019). Effective questioning in CLIL classrooms: Empowering thinking. ELT Journal, 73(4), 367-376. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz030 Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean: Scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Mar- tin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161-195). Continuum. Vollmer, H. J. (2008). Constructing tasks for content and language integrated learning and assessment. In J. Eckerth & S. Siekmann (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching: Theoretical, methodological, and peda- gogical perspectives (pp. 227-290). Peter Lang. Whittaker, R., & McCabe, A. (2020). Writing on history in a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) context: Development of grammatical metaphor as evidence of language learning. In R. Manchón, (Ed.) Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 309-332). John Benjamins.