OVERVIEW OF
CURRICULAR
DEMANDS OF
DISCIPLINARY
LITERACIES
An Exploratory Survey
A Report by CLILNetLE
Working Group 3
Deliverable 7
July
2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & CITATIONS .................................................................. 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 8
SECTION 1. General Objectives & Refined Specifications ................................. 12
1.1. General Objectives ................................................................................................. 12
1.2. Refining Specifications .......................................................................................... 13
Specification 1. Two Survey Angles & Methods ....................................................................... 13
Specification 2. Expanding the traditional definition of “CLIL” .............................................. 14
Specification 3. Additional Considerations .............................................................................. 15
SECTION 2. Curricular Expectations of Disciplinary Literacies (TASK-1) ........ 19
2.1. Introduction to TASK-1 ........................................................................................... 19
2.2. Methodology ........................................................................................................... 20
2.2.1. Process Design: Surveying Curricular Documents.............................................................. 20
2.2.2. Instruments of Analysis: Codebook & Survey Templates ................................................... 21
2.3. Results TASK-1: Data at a Glance ......................................................................... 23
2.4. Survey of Curricular Documents: National/Region Reports ................................ 28
Chapter 2.4.1. Albania (ITC) .......................................................................................................... 28
Chapter 2.4.2. Austria (non-ITC) ................................................................................................... 28
Chapter 2.4.3. Finland (non-ITC) ................................................................................................... 28
Chapter 2.4.4. Italy (non-ITC) ........................................................................................................ 28
Chapter 2.4.5. Lithuania (ITC) ....................................................................................................... 28
Chapter 2.4.6. The Netherlands (non-ITC) .................................................................................... 28
Chapter 2.4.7. Poland (ITC) ........................................................................................................... 28
Chapter 2.4.8. Spain – Madrid Region (non-ITC) .......................................................................... 28
2.5. Summary Overview TASK-1: Survey of Curricular Documents ........................... 29
SECTION 3. Teachers’ Expectations of Discipilnary Literacies (TASK-2) ......... 34
3.1. Introduction to TASK-2 ........................................................................................... 34
3.2. Methodology ........................................................................................................... 35
3.2.1. Process Design: Protocol for Eliciting Teachers’ Expectations ........................................... 35
3.2.2. Instrument of Analysis: CDF-Based Coding & Analysis Tool .............................................. 35
3.3. Results TASK-2: Data at a Glance ......................................................................... 36
3.4. Survey of Teachers’ Expectations: Analyses and Reflections ............................ 39
Chapter 3.4.1. Italy (1) (non-ITC)................................................................................................... 39
Chapter 3.4.2. Austria (non-ITC) ................................................................................................... 39
Chapter 3.4.3. Albania (1) (ITC) .................................................................................................... 39
Chapter 3.4.4. Albania (2) (ITC) .................................................................................................... 39
Chapter 3.4.5. Slovakia (ITC) ........................................................................................................ 40
Chapter 3.4.6. Turkey (ITC) ........................................................................................................... 40
1/D7
Chapter 3.4.7. Turkey (ITC) ........................................................................................................... 40
Chapter 3.4.8. Italy (2) (non-ITC)................................................................................................... 40
Chapter 3.4.9. Serbia (RS) ............................................................................................................ 40
3.5. Summary Overview TASK-2: Survey of Teachers’ Expectations ........................ 41
4. APPENDIX: SURVEY TOOLS DEVELOPED ..................................................... 46
Chapter 4.1. TOOL-1: Surveying Curricular Demands (Codebook & Survey
Template) ................................................................................................................ 46
Chapter 4.2. TOOL-2: Elicitation of Teachers’ Expectations (Guideline) .......... 46
Chapter 4.3. TOOL-3: A CDF-Based Coding & Analysis Guide (Reflection on
Teachers’ Expectations) ........................................................................................ 46
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Overview of countries and researchers involved ...................................................................... 6
Table 2. Information expected from “Overview of curricular demands” ................................................ 12
Table 3. Expanding the survey of “Overview of curricular demands” ................................................... 16
Table 4. Main categories of the coding scheme used in TASK-1 ......................................................... 21
Table 5. Survey of subjects covered in curriculum analysis ................................................................ 23
Table 6. Total words per subject, per education level .......................................................................... 27
Table 7. TASK-2 elicited texts from 50 teachers across nine countries ............................................... 36
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Example of maturing discipline-specific discourse .................................................................. 9
Figure 2. Example of limited subject literacy........................................................................................... 9
Figure 3. Volume of text each team surveyed for mentions of productive DL ...................................... 23
Figure 4.Total volume of text surveyed per education-level ................................................................. 24
Figure 5. Total volume of texts surveyed by each team, per education-level ...................................... 24
Figure 6. Total volume of text surveyed per subject area .................................................................... 25
Figure 7. Volume of text surveyed by each team per subject-area ...................................................... 25
Figure 8. Volume of text surveyed as a function of subject-area per education-level .......................... 26
Figure 9. Rewording curricular documents towards disciplinary literacy/ies: An example ................... 32
Figure 10. Distribution of teachers’ expectation data by education level (top) by country (bottom) ..... 37
Figure 11. Range of education-levels of teachers’ expectations texts collected in each country ......... 37
Figure 12. Distribution of teachers’ expectation data by subject and country ...................................... 38
Figure 13. Distribution of data by subject, country, and in CLIL or non-CLIL contexts......................... 38
2/D7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & CITATIONS
We have attempted to recognize all WG3 Members who have contributed to the immense
amount of work behind this Deliverable and also the process of organising for, developing
and writing this document.
To start, WG3 Members in Table 1 not only took part in at least one, if not both tasks of this
exploratory survey, they also authored specific “Chapters” within two “Sections” of this
Deliverable:
• In Section 2.4, all members who had participated in TASK-1 co-authored their
respective “National/Regional Reports”: please note these authors when citing their
chapter.
• In Section 3.4, individual WG3 Researchers who undertook TASK-2 authored
chapters to report on the disciplinary literacy/ies that teachers expect from their
students.
Yavuz Kurt (TR) is credited with not only maintaining and supervising the complex database
generated through this two-part survey, but also extracting the meaningful graphs and
dataset tables found in both “Data at a Glance” Sections (2.3 and 3.3).
With regard to the three Research Tools developed through this COST Action, authorship
behind each tool is clearly indicated and should be cited accordingly.
For all other Sections of this document, Christiane Dalton-Puffer (AT), Silvia RiederMarschallinger (AT) and Teresa Ting (IT) are credited with organizing and writing much of
this Deliverable: we wish to thank Silvia Minardi (IT) and Merita Hoxha (AL) for their careful
reading and invaluable suggestions.
We thank Sarah Wirnsperger for designing the cover: T. Ting takes responsibility for
adapting the royalty-free image of “school disciplines” created by “marchane sima
(simabella703)”, found on Pixabay (https://pixabay.com/illustrations/pattern-template-schoolbag-6870967/).
Finally, we would like to also acknowledge the many WG3 Members who had started on the
tasks, participated in numerous insightful exchanges, but did not manage to complete their
contributions on time for this Deliverable. We have therefore organized the page-numbering
of this document so that it is ready to welcome these promising complementary surveys.
CDP, SRM, TT (July 2024)
To cite this document:
The Development of Bi-and Multilingual Disciplinary Literacies Across Educational Levels:
An Exploratory Survey (2024)
Y.L. Teresa Ting, Silvia Rieder-Marschallinger, Christiane Dalton-Puffer
https://www.clilnetle.eu/output
3/D7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Can students truly understand complex concepts accurately if they are not equipped with the
language needed to precisely organize those concepts, cognitively? If students cannot use
language well to express their understanding of a given topic precisely, can we be sure that
they have indeed learnt well? Can we allow young adolescents to complete compulsory
education and leave school with limited ability to use language to express complex ideas in
ways which are appropriate for their age and suitable for the profession they wish to pursue?
COST Action 21114 “CLILNetLE: CLIL Network for Languages in Education”
recognizes that the explicit teaching of academic language and discipline-specific discourse
is crucial for successful learning. Indeed, as we leave compulsory education and move
forward professionally, many of us will often need to deal with “topics” which belong to
school subjects which may not be an intricate part of our professional livelihood. Thus,
school leavers need to be multi-literate i.e. sufficiently literate in all school subjects to make
informed decisions, or at least know the limitations of their knowledge and thus seek out
additional information before making decisions. While this objective of “informed citizenship”
is elegant but elusive, objectives such as “raising teachers’ awareness to the importance of
language in education” and “delineating the type of language teachers want their students to
master”, are concrete and executable ways to achieve literacy.
This Report represents Deliverable 7 (D7) of COST Action 21114 and is an exploratory
survey which makes a first step in the abovementioned, more concrete direction. The explicit
objective of this Deliverable is to “overview curricular demands regarding bi/multilingual
disciplinary literacies in CLIL across educational levels, for Key Subjects” (Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU), p. 18), surveying “at least three ITC countries and three Non-ITC
countries” (MoU, p. 20). The results reported here reflect the work of 33 Researchers from
19 Universities, a teacher-training institution and a high school, located in six ITC Countries
and five non-ITC Countries (Table 1). Together, these researchers performed two parallel
but complementary TASKS to survey and overview curricular demands of disciplinary
literacies from two angles:
•
In TASK-1, researchers used a well-defined codebook and survey template to pore
through and survey their respective National or Regional Curricular Documents for
instances of explicit mention of the need for students to show their understandings
through productive displays of disciplinary literacy/ies.
•
In TASK-2, researchers used a well-defined protocol to elicit from teachers
themselves, written texts which they feel demonstrate the quality of disciplinary
discourse which they expect from their students (spoken text in the case of primarylevel students). Such teacher-generated samples serve as a proxy for “curricular
demands of disciplinary literacies”. These texts, which reveal teachers’ expectations,
were subsequently analysed using a coding protocol which allowed researchers to
delineate the language features teachers expect from students when displaying
learning.
4/D7
Results of this two-part exploratory survey indicate that official curricular documents often list
very explicit cognitive learning objectives by way of “understand, appreciate, know, etc.” but
rarely make explicit mention of the need to prompt students for productive demonstrations of
knowledge. For example, by simply adding a few words, information stored within the head
of learners through verbs such as “understand, know, appreciate” can be drawn out through
verbs which call for productive displays of knowledge such as “explain how they have
understood that…; write an essay to show their appreciation of…; list information which
shows that they know…”. A concrete next step might be to revisit or “rehaul” (in the words of
the AT Team) official curricular documents so to make more explicit the quality of language
students should use when displaying their learning, knowledge and age-appropriate
cognitive maturity. This is complemented by the corpus of texts collected through TASK-2
whereby teachers themselves made explicit the discourse features they would like to see in
their students’ written texts, i.e. students’ productive discourse. This information can now be
used to design instructional tasks and materials to help both content and language teachers
build their students’ academic and discipline-specific language skills without requiring
content teachers to become language teachers or language teachers to start teaching
content.
The process of implementing this two-part exploratory survey led to the creation of two
corpora of texts and the development of three research tools & protocols, all of which can be
adapted into tools for teacher-training towards disciplinary literacy/ies:
1. A collection of national curricula translated into English: Since only the Finnish
curriculum was already available in English, it was necessary for WG3 Researchers
from the seven other countries (Albania, Austria, Italy, Lithuania, The Netherlands,
Poland and the Madrid-Region of Spain) to first translate parts and sometimes entire
national/regional curricular documents for the survey. As such, this Deliverable
encompasses a corpus of English translations of curricular documents, some of
which were originally written in languages that popular translation platforms such as
Google Translate, DeepL and ChatGPT are not yet well-trained in (e.g. Albanian,
Lithuanian, Polish). The fact that these EN translations of curricular documents have
been cross-checked by experienced academics, many of whom are Englishlanguage instructors, makes this corpus of more than 378,500 words a potentially
invaluable resource for others who may wish to access the national curricula of these
ITC and non-ITC countries.
2. Researchers undertaking TASK-2 generated a corpus of more than 25,250 words
which teachers have produced to show their demands/expectations of disciplinary
discourse. This corpus of teacher-generated text represents a complementary
resource to more common corpora of student-generated texts.
3. A Curricular Document Codebook & Survey Template was developed to help
researchers systematically survey their Curricular Documents. Details of this Survey
Tool can be found in the Appendix, TOOL-1.
4. To elicit written texts from teachers, a Teachers’ Expectation Text Elicitation Protocol
was developed, providing researchers a means to gain insight into the type of
language that teachers themselves expect from their own students. Details of this
Text-Elicitation Protocol can be found in the Appendix, TOOL-2.
5. A Cognitive Discourse Function (CDF)-Based Coding & Analysis Guide was
developed to delineate the discourse features present in the teachers’ expectation
texts. Details of this Survey Tool can be found in the Appendix, TOOL-3.
5/D7
Results of this two-part exploratory survey from six ITC countries and five non-ITC countries
are reported here, alongside links to the corpus of resources created and the three research
tools & protocols developed. The stipulation of the MoU to obtain analyses from 3 ITC
and 3 non-ITC countries has thus been more than fulfilled.
Table 1. Overview of countries and researchers involved
WG3 Researchers in ITC (*) and non-ITC countries undertook either TASK-1, TASK-2, or both.
Countries are listed in alphabetical order and researchers from the same country are listed in
alphabetical order of surname.
Country & Affiliation
Albania*
Jonida Cungu
Merita Hoxha
Gerda Sula
Austria
Tatjana Bacovsky-Novak
Christiane Dalton-Puffer
Ute Smit
Silvia Rieder-Marschallinger
Sarah Wirnsperger
Finland
Sami Lehesvuori
Tarja Nikula
Teemu Rainamaa
Sari Sulkunen
Anne Tiermas
Italy
Francesca Costa
Lucilla Lopriore
Silvia Minardi
Valentina Morgana
Teresa Ting
Lithuania*
Jolita Horbačauskienė
Milda Ratkevičienė
The Netherlands
Rick de Graaff
Gerald van Dijk
Jannet van Drie
Tessa Mearns
Poland*
Agnieszka Borowiak
Joanna Leek
Barbara Muszyńska
Slovakia*
Jaroslava Štefková
TASK(s)
University of Elbasan “Aleksandër Xhuvani”
University of Elbasan “Aleksandër Xhuvani”
University of Tirana
2
1&2
1
University of Vienna
University of Vienna
University of Vienna
Kirchliche Pädagogische Hochschule Wien-Krems
University of Vienna
1
1
1
1&2
1
University of Jyväskylä
University of Jyväskylä
University of Jyväskylä
University of Jyväskylä
University of Helsinki
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Università degli Studi Roma Tre
Liceo Statale ‘S.Quasimodo’, Magenta
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
University of Calabria
1
1
1
1
1
1
1&2
1&2
1
1&2
Kaunas University of Technology
Kaunas University of Technology
1
1
Utrecht University
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
University of Amsterdam
Leiden University
1
1
1
1
University of Humanities and Economics in Lodz
University of Lodz
University of Lower Silesia
1
1
1
Technical University in Zvolen
2
6/D7
Serbia*
Nataša Bakić-Mirić
Spain - Madrid
Ana Llinares
Tom Morton
Turkey*
Emine Adadan
Yavuz Kurt
The University of Priština – Kosovska Mitrovica
2
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
1
1
Bogazici University
Marmara Unversity
2
2
7/D7
INTRODUCTION
Disciplinary literacies encompass discipline-specific textual-discourse and semiotics that have
been normalised by experts of disciplinary communities of practice for the process of
producing knowledge. Schooling serves as context for recontextualising knowledge, representing disciplinary-knowledge as pedagogic-subjects for the purpose of providing
school-leavers with the level of disciplinary knowledge they will need to navigate
information and actively participate as democratically informed citizens.
(Nikula et al., 2024, p. 1-2)
Academic language is no-one’s mother tongue.
(Bourdieu and Passeron 1994, p. 8)
Disciplinary literacy is […] more than the basic language skills – reading, writing, speaking,
listening – in their own right. The key is the embeddedness of these skills in the context
of disciplinary cultures and school subjects […] highlighting the role of learners as
“doing” the subjects rather than as mere recipients of knowledge.
(Dalton-Puffer, Hüttner, Nikula 2024, p. 2)
At the foundation of this COST Action is the realization that, for students to comprehend
subject-specific notions presented through Content-instruction, it is necessary to build
learners’ subject-specific literacy skills. As succinctly stated in the first quote above, such
subject-specific literacy is far and beyond simply “knowing how to read and write” but
recognizes that each disciplinary community of practice has a distinct discipline-specific way
of “seeing” the world and thus languaging about the phenomena and events around us
(Schleppegrell, 2004; Hüttner & Dalton-Puffer, 2024; see also QR-Code-1 and QR-Code-2).
That each community of disciplinary subjects, such as chemistry, history and maths, uses
language in very discipline-specific ways (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008) reflects the need of
community experts to codify shared understandings in ways which reduce potential
misunderstandings but also provide shortcuts when
community experts further expand and develop their shared
discipline-specific knowledge repertoire. We would indeed
hope that the engineer and her team tasked with
constructing the new municipality kindergarten share a
QR-Code-1 QR-Codecodified way of “languaging about” their work.
Indeed, the closer we come to the reality of applying school-learning to a profession, the
more precise our discipline-specific understandings should become and thus the more
precise the language we need to use to “language about” these discipline-specific notions.
What this means for schooling is illustrated in Figure 1: As learners progress from primary to
secondary-level schooling and beyond, discipline-specific concepts mature
epistemologically, become increasingly more complex and abstract, as does the language
within which those complex discipline-specific concepts are embedded.
8/D7
Figure 1. Example of maturing discipline-specific discourse
As learners mature and progress through schooling, their understanding of discipline-specific
concepts should also mature epistemologically, which in turn requires more mature and complex
discipline-specific discourse (from Ting, 2024).
Figure 2. Example of limited subject literacy
An18-year-old who generates an output that mashes together the two discourses in Figure 1
calls into question whether this student has achieved a level of subject-literacy that is
epistemologically age-appropriate.
Saying that the sun “rises and sets” is what we might call “spontaneous, unschooled,
informal, everyday” ways of seeing and languaging about the world (Martin, 1993; Wellington
& Osborne, 2001), perfectly acceptable at primary-level education and appropriate with the
level of cognitive abstractions children at this age are capable of. However, as learners
mature chronologically and cognitively, and progress through school, we expect that their
understanding of the world also matures epistemologically. Vygotsky (1986) calls unschooled ways of making sense of tangible observations via concrete conceptualizations,
spontaneous knowledge (e.g. “the sun rises and sets”). In contrast, scientific knowledge
provides the correct understandings of not only the observable, but also the invisible, using
explanations which are often abstract and intangible (e.g. “the Earth rotates around its axis,
completing one rotation every 24 hours”). Clearly, even if a well-schooled astronomer
understands that “the sun rising and setting” is not scientifically accurate, it is important that
our “freedom of languaging” for purposes of facilitated situation-appropriate communication
(e.g. enjoying a beachfront social dinner) or artistic creativity (e.g. poetry and songwriting)
should nonetheless be founded on scientifically solid and sound understandings. Vygotsky
thus valued schooling as a context in which knowledgeable mentors (teachers), prompt us to
think in complex ways about abstract notions which we probably would not encounter if not
for schooling.
Therefore, as we progress through school, our discipline-specific understandings must
“mature epistemologically”, becoming more like that needed to participate in professional
interactions linked to those school-subjects. This is necessary for two reasons. Firstly, this
prepares school-leavers for entry into a professional workforce of their choice and/or further
education, both of which require age-appropriate disciplinary knowledge. Secondly, the
9/D7
purpose of mandatory schooling is the democratization of knowledge, i.e. providing all
school-leavers, regardless of the profession they embark on, enough knowledge and
understanding of each school-discipline so to become active citizens who can at least
evaluate the verity of certain claims and, when unsure, acknowledge the limits of their own
understandings and thus the need to investigate further before making decisions. Referring
to science education, UNESCO highlights the importance of “being subject literate”:
“Science […] provides the basis for informed decision-making and effective impact
assessments” (UNESCO 2015, p. 9).
“The Covid-19 pandemic has emphasized the importance of scientific literacy both in the
wider population and among decision-makers…Scientifically literate government leaders
have been quick to understand the value of a science-based approach to tackling the
pandemic” (UNESCO 2021, p.18).
Therefore, while “science literacy” regards the application of scientific knowledge to
pursue STEM-professions, “‘scientific literacy’, on the other hand, targets the wider
population. It seeks to impart scientific ways of thinking to equip people to approach
problems from an analytical perspective” (ibid). The mandate for pre-tertiary education,
even in L1, is to enable all students to comprehend complex content, assimilate
associated subject-specific-literacies […] so that school-leavers, regardless of the
profession they pursue, are nonetheless “multi-literate” citizens: The preparation of
multi-literate citizens must, therefore, be the objective of compulsory education (Ting,
2024).
While subject-teachers might encourage students to use various modalities to show their
level of “subject-literacy” (e.g. drawing and designing an infographic; setting up and carrying
out experiments; collecting and analysing data; etc.), the most straightforward way to verify if
learners have achieved age-appropriate subject-literacy is through the language they
generate to communicate the knowledge they have gained. Indeed, the text that students
produce, be it spoken or written, is a window into their thinking. For example, if an 18-yearold were to mash together the two discourses in Figure 1and state “Since the Earth makes
one rotation around its axis every 24 hours, the sun rises at the start of the day and sets at
the end of the day” (Figure 2), we, as teachers, would be left wondering if this learner has
fully understood that the Sun, being the enormous immobile star at the centre of our Solar
System, does no “rising and setting”. An 18-year-old producing such a mashed-text would
show us that s/he has not yet achieved an epistemologically mature level of disciplinary
comprehension that is appropriate for an 18-year-old. What the “mashed text” (Figure 2) also
illustrates is that simply sprinkling communications with more advanced discipline-relevant
technical words such as “rotation” and “axis” alongside sophisticated linguistic structures like
participle clauses (e.g. “causing the sun to…”) does not automatically achieve the type of
epistemologically mature disciplinary discourse which shows that students have achieved
age-appropriate disciplinary understandings.
That is the challenge of disciplinary discourse: It goes far beyond “technical words” and
“advanced grammar patterns” but involves a way of using language that is easily identified
yet non-easy (and uneasy) to read and challenging to produce. For example, in the first
paragraph of their seminal work Writing Science, Halliday and Martin (1993) write: “Adults
may choose to deny it, but children in school know very well that there is a ‘language of
science’. They may not be able to say how they know it; but when they are faced with a
10/D7
wording such as “One model said that when a substance dissolves, the attraction between
its particles becomes weaker”, they have no problem in recognizing it as the language of a
chemistry book. And they tend to feel rather put off by it…” (p. 2). Cummins’ (1984) work
with immigrants found that while it took only two years to master informal everyday
language, what he categorized as Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS), it took
immigrant learners up to seven years to attain Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
(CALP), i.e. the register needed to achieve academic and professional success. While
learners need to master CALP to succeed academically, Bourdieu and Passeron (1994, p. 8)
remind us that “academic language is no-one’s mother tongue”. Indeed, others have
equated the language of chemistry to a foreign language (Brown & Ryoo, 2008). If academic
language and discipline-specific discourse is no one’s mother tongue and akin to a foreign
language, then it becomes obvious that it must be taught explicitly, alongside the complex
discipline-specific concepts which are shaped through such discourse.
The importance of “mastering disciplinary discourse” cannot be overlooked. Students need
disciplinary discourse at both the input and output end of instruction: When presented with
new and complex discipline-specific concepts at the “input end of instruction”, students need
to be taught how to use disciplinary discourse correctly, to organize and structure
information into precise discipline-specific ways of reasoning about disciplinary knowledge.
Subsequently, at the “output end of instruction”, be it when students are being examined in
school or when they are aspiring employees at job interviews, they are expected to
communicate discipline-specific knowledge through discipline-sanctioned language, i.e.
disciplinary discourse.
Thus this COST Action. At the foundation of this COST Action is the belief that disciplinespecific discourse is sin qua non of subject-instruction at two levels.
• Firstly, discipline-specific discourse is essential for properly organizing and thus
learning and comprehending discipline-specific notions accurately.
• Secondly, since discipline-specific discourse is the preferred way subject-experts
“language about” shared understandings, for school-leavers to enter and advance
within their chosen professions, they need to master this way of communicating
knowledge (Martin, 1993). Productive disciplinary-discourse must therefore be part
and parcel of subject-instruction.
While some aforementioned discipline-pertinent literacies which are not based on textual
production, such as drawing and designing an infographic, setting up and carrying out
experiments, collecting and analysing data, etc., are also essential to “doing a discipline”,
few would deny that the process of understanding how to achieve these non-textual outputs
is nonetheless based on notions which are shaped and conceptualized through disciplinary
discourse, i.e. “language and text”.
And who is best positioned to show students how to use disciplinary discourse to properly
organize new discipline-specific information if not the subject-teacher? And who can teach
students how to speak and write using chemistry-sanctioned language if not their chemistry
teacher? Since such discipline-specific academic ways of using language is akin to a foreign
language, much like learning a foreign language, we would do well to start sensitizing
learners and teachers to this “language of schooling” (Schleppegrell, 2004; Lin, 2016) as
soon as possible.
11/D7
SECTION 1. GENERAL OBJECTIVES & REFINED SPECIFICATIONS
1.1. GENERAL OBJECTIVES
The question is, therefore, whether subject-teachers, across all age-groups, explicitly build
students’ academic and disciplinary language in ways which support learners’ ability to
organize information and subsequently communicate knowledge using age-appropriate
academic and discipline-specific discourse. Work Group 3 (WG3) of this COST Action has
consequently been tasked with delineating the “development of bi-and multilingual
disciplinary literacies across educational levels”. In particular:
“WG3 addresses developmental trajectories of learner groups, focusing on the transition
across educational levels (primary-secondary-tertiary education). Especially the transition
from primary to secondary school is a key moment in children’s initiation into the abstract
language of the disciplines. The issues arising in this transition may be even more acute if
it involves changes in the language(s) of instruction. In addition to a lack of overview of
existing data on learner production and the general paucity of longitudinal data, there is an
absence of a shared meta-language for presenting learner production data.” (MoU p. 18).
To achieve this, the task of WG3 was to “[o]verview curricular demands regarding
bi/multilingual disciplinary literacies in CLIL across educational levels (grades 4, 6, 10, 12)
for Key Subjects” (MoU, p. 18), which are the subjects of History, Mathematics and Science
(MoU, p. 9). More specifically, as “Detailed Survey 2” this Deliverable seeks to “[s]urvey
curricular demands regarding bi/multilingual disciplinary literacies at diverse levels of
education [by sampling] at least 3 ITC, 3 Non-ITC)” (MoU, p. 20). This objective is
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Information expected from “Overview of curricular demands”
As will be explained in more detail below, we sought to gain an “overview of curricular
demands regarding disciplinary literacies” from two complementary angles, i.e. a two-part
survey. Part-1 of this two-part exploratory survey is a “survey of official curricular documents
12/D7
for mentions of productive disciplinary literacies”, while Part-2 is a “survey of teachers’
expectations of students’ productive disciplinary discourse”. This Report represents
Deliverable 7 of this Cost Action and presents the findings of both exploratory surveys which
together answer the question: “What are the curricular demands of disciplinary literacies,
longitudinally along different levels of schooling in both ITC and non-ITC countries, and
across key school subjects?”
Once the COST Action launched, these General Objectives where further refined and
specified in three ways through online as well as in-person meetings and collaborations, as
described below.
1.2. REFINING SPECIFICATIONS
Specification 1. Two Survey Angles & Methods
Prior to the Action Launch meeting in Vienna (March 03-04, 2023), online meetings were
held during which WG3 Members evaluated different strategies for achieving the objectives
of WG3, i.e. delineating the curricular demands of DL along the educational grades and key
subjects in at least three ITC countries and three non-ITC countries, as specified in the MoU.
Through this bottom-up decisional process, WG3 Members agreed on two investigative
survey methods to “overview curricular demands of bi/multilingual disciplinary literacies”.
The first investigation would survey of how official curricular documents published by
national or regional education boards delineated such “demands”, i.e. what do these official
documents state regarding how schools and teachers might proceed to build their students’
disciplinary literacy awareness and competency.
• To answer this question, it was therefore necessary to develop a protocol for
surveying curricular demands of disciplinary literacies. This “Protocol for Surveying
Curricular Demands of Disciplinary Literacy/ies” is presented in Section 2 and
Chapter 4.1 of the Appendix.
•
Part-1 of the Survey was organized as “Task 1 of WG3” and represents the main
survey that was undertaken by almost all members of WG3.
•
Christiane Dalton-Puffer (AT) and Teresa Ting (IT) co-led WG3-TASK-1, with input
from Rick de Graaf (NL).
A second method identified to “overview curricular demands of disciplinary literacies” was to
simply ask teachers from the Key Subjects about the disciplinary literacy they themselves
“demand and expect” from their students, considering their students’ age and educational
level. For those who have experience teaching subject-specific content, especially complex
post-primary level subjects, the issue of “language” is often not of immediate and conscious
concern for subject-specialists (Wellington & Osborne, 2001; Smit & Dafouz, 2012), let alone
the notion of “disciplinary literacies”. In fact, since “disciplinary discourse” is not wellunderstood by the general public and was actually being delineated by WG1 and due well
after WG3 should start its survey, directly asking subject-teachers questions about
“disciplinary literacies” risked the collection of responses, data and thus information which
would not be founded upon a solid understanding of the notion being queried.
13/D7
•
As a consequence, it was necessary to develop a second survey protocol which,
without asking teachers direct questions about their expectations of disciplinary
literacies, would nonetheless make it possible to reveal the type of disciplinary
literacy/ies subject specialists expect from their students. This “Protocol for
Surveying Teachers’ Expectations of Disciplinary Literacy/ies” is presented in
Part 3 and Chapter 4.2 of the Appendix.
•
Part-2 of the Survey was organized as “TASK-2 of WG3”, and although it was not the
main survey, it revealed interesting implications for teacher training that prepares
teachers for building their students’ academic and disciplinary literacy/ies.
•
To understand teachers’ “curricular demands and expectations” of disciplinary
literacy/ies from their students, a guide was developed to code and analyse these
teachers’ texts for features of cognitive discourse functions (CDF). This “CDF-Based
Coding & Analysis Guide” is also discussed in Part 3 and detailed in Chapter 4.3 of
the Appendix.
•
Silvia Minardi (IT) and Silvia Rieder-Marschallinger (AT) co-led WG3-TASK-2
Specification 2. Expanding the traditional definition of “CLIL”
During the first online meeting and subsequently at the in-person Action Launch Meeting in
Vienna, it became apparent that the proposed objective which specifically regards “CLIL”,
i.e. to “overview curricular demands regarding bi/multilingual disciplinary literacies in CLIL
across educational levels… for Key Subjects” (MoU, p. 18), needed to be reconsidered more
deeply and expanded for two reasons.
Firstly, while most Member Countries had official processes in place regarding offering
“CLIL” or “bilingual instruction”, none had specific curricular documentation detailing what
teaching of content through a foreign language entails. As such, it would have been
impossible to survey any official curricula for “curricular demands regarding bi/multilingual
disciplinary literacies in CLIL…”. However, as discussed briefly in the Introduction, the
learning of any content requires the integration of content-specific concepts with contentspecific language, meaning that the learning of any and all “content”, even in L1, is “Content
and Language Integrated Learning”, i.e. “CLIL” (Hüttner & Dalton-Puffer, 2024). This is the
second reason for a deeper reconsideration of the acronym “CLIL”, recognizing that, even in
L1, “discipline-specific discourse” is akin to a “foreign language” (Brown & Ryoo, 2008),
generating a centrifugal force (Halliday & Martin, 1993) for those who are not yet members
of the disciplinary community of practice, simply because “academic language is no one’s
mother tongue” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1994). WG3 thus decided to expand the traditional
definition of CLIL from “the teaching of content through a named foreign language” to include
“the teaching of content through foreign as well as academic, subject-specific L1”.
In addition, WG3 Members agreed that it might also be interesting to ask the question, “do
curricular documents which explicitly regard language instruction, such as L1-language and
a foreign language, make explicit mentions and “demands” on how schooling and teachers
should cultivate students’ productive academic language skills?”. Therefore, in addition to
the “Key Subjects” of History, Maths and Science already mentioned in the MoU, WG3
Members also agreed to survey for curricular demands of disciplinary/academic literacy in
14/D7
curricular documents addressing “L1-as-subject” and “First-FL-as-subject”. This is in line with
the core aims of this Action:
The Action will engage experts in CLIL, in subject education and in language education,
all from diverse geographical and educational sectors. (MoU, p.8)
Specification 3. Additional Considerations
Members agreed that the grade levels which were originally proposed could be compacted
into three main categories, corresponding to age ranges which are often associated with
epistemological changes in content-complexity in subject instruction: primary (6-10 years of
age), lower secondary (11-13 years of age) and upper secondary (14-18 years of age).
In addition, Members also agreed that it would be interesting to survey the demands and
expectation that first year university teachers might have regarding their students’
disciplinary discourse and literacy/ies, which would be highly relevant to one of the aims of
this Action:
To disseminate information on how to support the development of bi/multilingual
disciplinary literacies in CLIL classes, to stakeholders. These are primarily academic and
educational, i.e. school communities (teachers, pupils, heads of school, parents),
educational authorities (ministries of education, school boards, policy makers, curricular
agencies), teacher education and development organisations (teacher education at
university/college, national and international teacher networks, European Centre for
Modern Languages (ECML). Post-secondary Stakeholders (further/higher education,
workplace), relevant members of industry (national and international publishers of
educational materials) and the general public will also be addressed. (MoU, p. 7, emphasis
added)
Since most university course documentations and curricula are not comparable to pretertiary-level “official national/regional curricula”, this tertiary-level survey was only realized
using the survey protocol of Task-2, involving courses that were highly specialized within the
general subject of Science.
Finally, once Members started poring through their official curricular documents, it became
apparent that while some curricular documents were very brief and accessible only online
(e.g. Poland), some were tomes containing very dense and interesting “General /
Introductory Sections”, which were highly informative and were therefore analysed as well.
Table 3 illustrates how the original “overview of curricular demands” delineated in the MoU
were expanded to include a survey of more categories.
15/D7
Table 3. Expanding the survey of “Overview of curricular demands”
The original expectations regarding an “overview of curricular demands” (left) were expanded to
include education-levels (e.g. university-level science) as well as school subjects (e.g. L1instruction, first foreign language (usually “English as a FL”)). These additional categories are
indicated with a (*). Grade levels were modified to reflect common categories in curricular
documents with a shared understanding that each category corresponded to age-ranges (see
“key”) which reflect general changes in epistemology.
Key:
•
•
•
16/D7
Primary: age ca. 6-10
Lower secondary: age ca. 11-13
Upper secondary: age ca. 14-18
References: Introduction & Section 1
Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2022). CLIL With a Capital I: Using Cognitive Discourse Functions
to Integrate Content and Language Learning in CLIL History Education. Doctoral
Thesis, University of Vienna.
Bourdieu, P. & J-C. Passeron (1994). Introduction : Language and the relationship to
language in the teaching situation. In P. Bourdieu, J-C. Passeron & M. de Saint Martin,
(Eds), Academic Discourse. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brown, B. A., & Ryoo K. (2008). Teaching science as a language: a “content-first” approach
to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (5), 529-533.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and
Pedagogy. Multilingual Matters.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (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. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: specifying and integrative
interdisciplinary construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.),
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism: Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and
Multilingual Education (pp. 29–54). Multilingual Matters. Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-005
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2019). Cognitive discourse functions meet
historical competences: Towards an integrated pedagogy in CLIL history education.
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7(1), 30–60.
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17017.dal
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J. & T. Nikula. (2024). Introduction. The conceptualization of
disciplinary literacies in CLIL, in in Julia Huttner and Christiane Dalton-Puffer (Eds),
Building Disciplinary Literacies in Content and Language Integrated Learning, (pp. 125). Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Martin, J.R. (1993). Writing Science. Falmer Press.
Hüttner, J, & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2024). Building Disciplinary Literacies in Content and
Language Integrated Learning. Routledge.
Lin, A.M.Y. (2016). Language Across the Curriculum & CLIL in English as an Additional
Language (EAL) Contexts. Springer.
Martin, J.R. (1993). Life as a noun: Arresting the universe in science and humanities. In
Halliday, M.A.K. & Martin, J.R. (Eds), Writing Science (pp. 221-267). London: Falmer
Press.
Minardi S. (2020), Lingua, Apprendimento e Discipline. La fisica in lingua di scolarizzazione
e in CLIL/AIDEL. Pisa: Pacini Editore.
Nikula, T, et al. (2024). CLILNetLe: Towards an Initial Operationalisation of Disciplinary
Literacies, DOI: https://doi.org/10.25365/phaidra.512. Retrieved from:
https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/detail/o:2050621
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics Perspective.
Routledge.
17/D7
Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents:
rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.
Smit, U. & Dafouz, E. (2012). Integrating content and language in higher education: An
introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research practices
across Europe. AILA Review 25, 1-12.
Ting, Y.L.T. (2024). Designing materials for building subject-specific literacies: Secondarylevel chemistry. In J. Hüttner & C. Dalton-Puffer (Eds.), Building Disciplinary Literacies
in Content and Language Integrated Learning (pp. 164-215). Routledge.
UNESCO (2015). UNESCO Science Report: Towards 2030. UNESCO Publishing.
https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/unesco-science-report-towards2030-part1.pdf
UNESCO (2021). UNESCO Science Report Essay: Scientific literacy: an imperative for a
complex world. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377448
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and Language. A. Kozulin (Ed.). The MIT Press.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and Literacy in Science Education.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
18/D7
SECTION 2. CURRICULAR EXPECTATIONS OF DISCIPLINARY
LITERACIES (TASK-1)
2.1. INTRODUCTION TO TASK-1
This task answers directly to the objective expressed in the MoU for WG3 to “[o]verview
curricular demands regarding bi/multilingual disciplinary literacies in CLIL across educational
levels (grades 4,6,10,12) for Key Subjects”. As detailed in the introduction (Section 1 of this
report), this objective is based on the facts that a) “the transition from primary to secondary
school is a key moment in children’s initiation into the abstract language of the disciplines”,
and b) “issues arising in this transition may be even more acute if it involves changes in the
language”, i.e. the use of a foreign language, as is the case in CLIL-instruction. The key
question pursued in TASK-1 was, therefore, the following:
Do National Curricular Documents alert teachers and educators to the
“double-difficulty” of learning complex abstract content through a foreign
language?
To address this question, the most obvious procedure was to review curricular documents
to see in how far they address “the abstract language of the disciplines” and to compare
CLIL and non-CLIL curricular documents in this respect. What immediately became evident
in all countries represented in WG3 is that, while our countries advocate for CLIL, there is no
specific “National CLIL Curriculum” which explicitly addresses the specific challenges
accompanying the process of “learning complex abstract concepts through a foreign
language”. The original proposal by the MoU with its focus on CLIL consequently evolved
into a general “[o]verview of curricular demands regarding disciplinary literacies in
educational levels (grades 4, 6, 10, 12) for Key Subjects of History, Maths, Science, L1
and English as a foreign language1”. Part-1 of the two-part exploratory survey thus sought
to understand if and how national curricula guide classroom and subject teachers
towards building students’ “disciplinary literacy” across educational levels.
In Section 2.2, we briefly describe the methodological and procedural cornerstones of the
analysis; Section 2.3 first provides “at a glance” overview of the dataset generated through
the survey; Section 2.4 presents the individual country reports; Section 2.5 concludes with a
summary overview of insights gained through Part-1 of this two-part exploratory survey.
The more general formulation “first foreign language” was considered, but English is the first foreign
language in all countries involved.
1
19/D7
2.2. METHODOLOGY
2.2.1. PROCESS DESIGN: SURVEYING CURRICULAR DOCUMENTS
Given the contingencies of a COST project structure, this exploration across national
education systems (ITC and non-ITC countries) was conceived as a multiple case study. In
concrete terms, WG3 Members from the following countries recruited colleagues from within
and outside the action to form a national curriculum analysis team (ITC countries underlined)
Albania, Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Kosovo, Lithuania,
Poland, Slovakia, Spain-Basque Country, Spain-Comunidad de Madrid, The Netherlands,
Turkey
The following steps were defined for the entire process:
1. Collect national curriculum texts for the key subjects History, Maths, Science, L1 and
EFL at the key levels of “primary”, “lower secondary” and “upper secondary”. Where
appropriate, general parts of national curricula were also included in the survey.
2. Translate curricular texts into English. This was carried out as a two-phase procedure
of automatic translation (Google Translate, DeepL and/or ChatGPT) and manual
editing.
3. Upload translated key subject curricula and original curricular texts on the WG3 cloud
space.
4. Analyse individual curricular documents. This was done per subject curriculum by
individual researchers applying the shared analysis instrument and template (both
described below).
5. Mutually cross-check the individual analyses within your national team.
6. Survey and compare analyses across subjects and write a national report.
7. Send the draft report to a previously defined TASK-1 national team for review and
feedback.
8. Finalize national report based on feedback.
9. Upload of national report on the WG3 cloud space.
Some of the national teams were able to carry out only steps 1-3, or 1-5. Eventually, the
following national reports were received and appear as chapters in Section 2.4 (ITC
countries underlined):
•
Albania, Austria, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Spain-Comunidad de Madrid, The
Netherlands
The stipulation of the MoU to obtain analyses from 3 ITC and 3 non-ITC countries has thus
been more than fulfilled.
20/D7
2.2.2. INSTRUMENTS OF ANALYSIS: CODEBOOK & SURVEY TEMPLATES
The multiple case study on the national curricula was carried out by way of a document
analysis, using a shared analysis tool. This tool was devised in an iterative process by a
subgroup of WG3 Members, with Teresa Ting (IT) and Christiane Dalton-Puffer (AT)
participating as members of this sub-group at all stages.
The analysis tool is based on the Action’s working definition of Disciplinary Literacy (DL), as
produced by WG1. At the time of designing the TASK-1 analysis tool, only a short working
definition of DL was available. A full account has been published since
(https://www.clilnetle.eu/output), with a slightly updated version of the original working
definition to be found at the end of that document.
The Codebook consists of seven categories briefly summarized in Table 4 below. A full
version with illustrative examples that was distributed to the national teams can be found in
the Appendix, “TOOL-1”. In brief, the coding scheme was used to ask the survey question
“where in the official documents are there instances where productive disciplinary literacy/ies
are mentioned?”. Therefore, a phrase such as “students should understand-X” would not be
considered an instance which mentions productive literacy skills, while a phrase such as
“students should be able to explain their understanding of X, using Y” would be considered
an instance where “the official curricular document prompts for productive disciplinary
literacy/ies”. As will be explained in Section 2.4, one way to help schools and teachers
become more aware that discipline-specific discourse and literacy/ies are crucial for
understanding disciplinary-notions accurately and for communicating discipline-specific
knowledge in discipline-appropriate ways is to ensure that official curricular documents are
worded to prompt for productive discipline-specific and academic discourse and literacy/ies
rather than simply “demanding” for the acquisition of declarative knowledge.
Table 4. Main categories of the coding scheme used in TASK-1
Code
Meaning
CV
GG
PL
DD
VV
TT
OTH
Command verbs (i.e. Cognitive Discourse Functions / CDFs)
Genres and text-types
Productive use of language (not CDFs or genres/text-types)
Elements of digital literacy for learning or sharing knowledge
Elements of visual literacy for learning or sharing knowledge
Subject-specific realia required for undertaking subject-specific hands-on actions
Anything else relevant to (subject-specific) communication not covered by the above
categories
Therefore, each mention of productive disciplinary and academic literacy/ies was “tagged”.
Tagging was performed by marking relevant stretches of curriculum text and adding twoletter codes in brackets after the marked text. Additionally, the marked text was colour-coded
according to the colour scheme indicated in Table 4.
In order to obtain a common format for the analysed documents, a “Survey Template” of
preformatted boxes was used to collect stretches of curriculum text that have been tagged
according to the codebook. It also includes separate spaces for observations and reflections
21/D7
by the analysers. Similar comments are often implemented in the “memo”-function of
qualitative data analysis software.
While it would of course have been preferable to implement the analysis on a shared
software platform such as MaxQDA or Atlas.ti, the TASK-1 team had to decide against it for
practical reasons. Neither the software licensing costs nor the person-hours involved would
have been coverable under the COST project philosophy. That said, since TASK-1 called
upon researchers to systematically tag “instances of productive displays of discipline-specific
literacy/ies” by highlighting such instances (phrases or words) using specified colours and
then adding specific tagging-codes, it obliged researchers to delve very deeply into their
national curricula. Alongside the survey template which asked researchers to immediately
note their reflections on texts they had just surveyed, we believe that the tools we developed
to deal with “lack of software” actually resulted in researchers becoming deeply engaged
with their official curricular documents. In fact, as will be evident in many of the National
Reports in the next section, many Teams found TASK-1 challenging but informative,
prompting them to consider how their curricular documents might be rehauled, reorganized,
or rewritten so to draw teachers’ attention to the need to explicitly teach students the
language and literacy skills school leavers need to seamlessly enter and pursue their chosen
professions.
22/D7
2.3. RESULTS TASK-1: DATA AT A GLANCE
A total corpus of more than 404,300 words of text were surveyed by the eight
National/Regional Teams of Albania (AL), Austria (AT), Finland (FI), Italy (IT), Lithuania (LT),
The Netherlands (NL), Poland (PL), and Spain-Madrid (ES-M). Detailed National/Regional
Reports are found in Section 2.4. This Section intends to overview the profile of the dataset
that was analysed in this exploratory survey by grade level, by school subject, and also by
national/regional context. To start, Table 5 overviews the curricula analysed in terms of
subject areas in three ITC countries and five non-ITC countries/regions.
Table 5. Survey of subjects covered in curriculum analysis
NOTE: (*) ITC Countries; more detailed information on exact subjects, age levels and
details of education systems can be found in the respective Country Reports in the
respective chapters in Section 2.4.
Subjects
Countries
Albania*
Austria
Finland
Italy
Lithuania*
Poland*
Spain-Madrid
The Netherlands
MATH
x
x
x
x
SCIENCE
HISTORY
& social
science
L1
First FL
GENERA
L PART
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Note that in Figures 3-8 below, “Spain” indicates the “Madrid Region”. See the national
reports in Section 2.4 for details regarding which parts of curricular documents were
surveyed, the L1-curricula which were surveyed, which subjects were included in “Science”,
etc. As explained earlier, the survey was carried out on English translations of curricular
documents. Except for the Finnish curriculum, which was available in English, all other
bodies of texts represent the translation work of the respective national/regional teams.
Figure 3. Volume of text each team surveyed for mentions of productive DL
23/D7
Figure 4.Total volume of text surveyed per education-level
NOTE: As explained in Section 1.2, “Specification 3”, the labels of “primary”, “lower secondary” and
“upper secondary” corresponded to certain age-ranges (6-10, 11-13 and 14-18, respectively)
which, however, did not correlate with some national classifications or the organisation of certain
curricular documents (e.g., in Lithuania, “secondary” is 11-18, while in Finland “primary and lower
secondary” ranges from 7-15 and the Italy “primary and lower secondary curriculum” is a single
document for learners in the age-range 6-13. In all cases, details can be found in respective
National/Regional Reports in Section 2.4.
Figure 5. Total volume of texts surveyed by each team, per education-level
24/D7
Figure 6. Total volume of text surveyed per subject area
Figure 7. Volume of text surveyed by each team per subject-area
25/D7
Figure 8. Volume of text surveyed as a function of subject-area per education-level
26/D7
Table 6. Total words per subject, per education level
NOTE that the total word count here includes the EN-language text
of the FI curriculum, accounting for the difference in word count
reported in the Executive Summary
Total word count of corpus
Subject/Level
surveyed
General Part
Primary and Lower Secondary
12778
Upper Secondary
44408
Secondary (general)
10500
History
Primary
8650
Lower Secondary
4359
Upper Secondary
20408
Secondary (general)
25453
L1
Primary
3665
Lower Secondary
7592
Upper Secondary
7973
Secondary (general)
60013
L2 English
Lower Secondary
2517
Upper Secondary
7465
Secondary (general)
36973
Mathematics
Primary
950
Lower Secondary
5979
Upper Secondary
7994
Secondary (general)
28327
Science
Primary
12827
Lower Secondary
34798
Upper Secondary
38004
Secondary (general)
22704
Grand Total
404337
27/D7
2.4. SURVEY OF CURRICULAR DOCUMENTS: NATIONAL/REGION
REPORTS
This Section presents the survey results obtained by the eight National Teams which had
undertaken TASK-1, using the Codebook to survey curricular documents of their education
system. These “National/Regional Reports” are organized in alphabetical order of country
name.
NOTE on page numbers: These eight chapters are inserted within the body of Deliverable-7
proper. As such, the page-numbering of the document pertaining to the Deliverable proper
continue with “page/D7” while those of the respective National/Regional Reports are coded
accordingly, e.g. page 5 of the Albanian Report is numbered “5/AL”. This organisation allows
national teams to continue their pursuit of interesting issues which have emerged through
this exploratory survey and subsequently update their chapters. To access the survey of
each country, click on the range of pages indicated. After these National/Regional Reports,
readers will return to the page which follows this one, within the Deliverable proper.
CHAPTER 2.4.1. ALBANIA (ITC)
10 Pages: 1/AL – 10/AL
CHAPTER 2.4.2. AUSTRIA (NON-ITC)
12 Pages: 1/AT – 12/AT
CHAPTER 2.4.3. FINLAND (NON-ITC)
5 Pages: 1/FI -5/FI
CHAPTER 2.4.4. ITALY (NON-ITC)
Pages 20: 1/IT – 20/IT
CHAPTER 2.4.5. LITHUANIA (ITC)
14 Pages: 1/LT – 14/LT
CHAPTER 2.4.6. THE NETHERLANDS (NON-ITC)
14 Pages: 1/NL – 14/NL
CHAPTER 2.4.7. POLAND (ITC)
5 Pages: 1/PL – 5/PL
CHAPTER 2.4.8. SPAIN – MADRID REGION (NON-ITC)
4 Pages: 1/ES (Madrid) – 4/ES (Madrid)
28/D7
Albanian National Report
1. Team & Process
The two members of the Albanian National Curriculum Analysis Team is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. The Albanian National Curriculum Analysis Team
Members &
Interest in COST and Disciplinary
Affiliation
Discourse
*Merita Hoxha.
EFL specialist interested in methods of
University of Elbasan teaching and learning languages and
“Aleksandër
Disciplinary Literacies
Xhuvani”
Gerda Sula.
University of Tirana
Learning theories, interested in
integrated and inclusive modalities for
improving learning
*ALBANIA National Curriculum TEAM LEADER
The Albanian-TEAM was coordinated by Merita Hoxha. The division of labour was agreed in a joint meeting
between the group members. Merita Hoxha was in charge of collecting L1 and EN versions of lower
secondary history and lower secondary biology curricula as well as the chosen parts of the general section
and their initial analysis. The translation from Albanian to English was done by Merita Hoxha and Gerda Sula
using Google Translate and checked by both researchers. The report is also produced by the collaboration of
both researchers.
The team decided which parts of the curriculum of History and Biology was most important to focus on and
decided that it was worth focusing on the connection between key competences and subject specific
competences. While coding, the researchers met online to agree on problematic cases, outline joint
decisions and to agree on the division of labour in checking the coding for each curriculum.
1/AL
2. National School System
Figure 1. Albanian education system. Source: www.Eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu
Obligatory education age in Albania is from 6 to 16 years old. It includes basic education and lower
secondary education. Classification of education level in Albania is done based on codes 0,1,2,3 in reference
to the "International Standards of education" approved by UNESCO General Conference in 1997. Based on
this classification the following education forms can be distinguished in regard to pre-university education.
•
•
•
Pre school education [Arsimi parashkollor] starts from 0 to 6 years old in the Albanian education
system. It is not obligatory. Institutions offering pre-school education are creches [çerdhet] and
kindergartens [Kopshtet]. Creches are governed by the Municipalities and serve children 0 to 3 years
old. Kindergartens are attended by children 3 to 6 years old and are co-dependent by the Ministry of
Education, Sports and Youth and the Municipalities. Kindergartens can be half board and full board
and organize their activities based on programmes developed by the Ministry. Preprimary education
is not compulsory, even though many efforts are being made to turn it so.
Basic education [Arsimi Bazë] starts at the age of 6 and ends at the age of 16 years old and is
compulsory. It is composed by two cycles:
o primary cycle [Arsimi fillor] coded with 1 and is composed of five classes (classes I-IV) and
o lower secondary education [Arsimi i mesëm i ulët] composed of four classes (classes VI-IX).
The pupils that are 16 years old but did not complete primary education can complete it in
part-time schools. Basic education for pupils with limited abilities is organized in a) special
schools (very few, and mostly serve as resource centers), b) special classes within
mainstream schools or c) integrated in mainstream classes, supported by ancillary teachers.
Upper secondary education [Arsimi i mesëm i lartë] is optional and starts at the age of 16 years old.
Higher secondary education in Albania is composed by:
o General Upper Secondary education [Gjimnazet]. This type of higher secondary education
lasts for three years and is composed of three classes. Pupils that are 23 years old but did
not complete this type of education can follow it on a part-time basis.
o Vocational High school [Shkollat e Mesme Profesionale] has a duration of two to four
years. It is structured at three levels based on the Albanian National Qualification
Framework.
2/AL
o
Oriented Education Schools [Shkolla të arsimit të orientuar] include art schools, sport
schools, foreign languages schools and schools oriented in other education areas. Admission
in these institutions is done based on specific criteria set by specific Decision of Council of
Ministers.
All types of higher secondary education mentioned above are completed once the State Matura Exam is
finished (the same for all forms of education). Matura exams include three common subjects namely
Albanian Language and Literature, Math and one foreign language. They also include subjects by choice
which are defined by guidance of the Minister of Education. Organization and development of national state
matura exams are regulated by guidance of the Minister.
Higher Education
Students who have successfully completed secondary education are eligible for higher education in Albania.
Higher Education Institutions
Higher education in Albania is offered by following higher education institutions- University, academy and
higher institutes. There are public as well as private higher education institutions in Albania.
University (Universitet): These are autonomous universities. In Albania, universities offer a wide range of
courses at undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
Higher institute (institut i lartë): The higher institutes/non-university higher schools provide programmes up
to master’s level.
Academy (akademi): Academies offer programmes up to doctorate level.
Higher Education Qualifications
Higher education institutions in Albania provide undergraduate as well as postgraduate study programmes.
•
•
•
Bachelor degree last for 3 to 4 years
Master’s degree last for 1-2 years
Quaternary education/doctorate (doktorate) last for 3 years
There are also programmes that last for 1 to 3 years leading to Specialization Certificate (Dëshmi
Specializimi)
All levels of education are public and private. A great number of private pre-university institutions apply CLIL
methodology. The CLIL language in these institutions is generally English. However, there are a few public
high schools in Albania which apply CLIL methodology and the CLIL languages are French, German and
Italian, facilitated through bilateral agreements with the respective governments. The public interest in CLIL
methodology has been growing in the recent years. Foreign languages are used as languages of instruction in
bilingual high school sections, and at their meeting with the Council of Europe experts, representatives of
parents’ organizations expressed a strong interest in the expansion of CLIL in schools generally (Language
Education Policy Profile 2015-2017, Albania). This is emphasized by empirical data gathered by Albanian
researchers who also point out the importance of applying CLIL methodology based on alumni students’
perceptions (Hoxha and Bejtja, 2024), on teachers’ perceptions (Sula, Zahaj, and Hoxha, 2024), (Sula &
Hoxha, 2024), and teachers and students’ perspective (Çekrezi, 2011).
3/AL
There are two institutions in charge of education policies in Albania. The first is the Agency for Quality
Assurance in Pre-university Education in Albania which collaborates strongly with the second institution, the
Ministry of Education and Sports. The Ministry of Education and Sports is responsible for the education
policy while the Agency for Quality Assurance in Pre-university Education is responsible for implementing the
policy. The Agency for Quality Assurance in Pre-university Education has 4 directories, one of which is the
Directory of Curriculum and Qualifications, which among others:
•
•
•
•
analyzes, develops, and reviews important documents such as curriculum frameworks, subject
programs, and standards according to curriculum fields;
drafts and publishes curriculum documents for pre-university education, as well as supporting
materials for the implementation of the curriculum at the national level;
drafts subject programs for all cycles (preschool education and grades 1-12);
drafts and publishes curriculum guides and supporting materials for the implementation of the
curriculum at the national level
These two institutions form the core institutions for the curriculum design and implementation in Albania.
To know more about the Albanian education system, read the post “Albania Education Overview”.
3. This Survey
Figure 2 illustrates which Albanian curricular documents were collected in L1 and EN versions; the latter were
analysed with the coding system described in Section 1 of the whole report. In the Albanian context, the
team provided the translation for the curricular documents published by the Albanian Agency for Quality
Assurance in Pre-university Education into English by using Google Translate and then double checked by
both researchers.
Lower secondary (grade 9)
History
Biology
General parts
Selection containing sections of transversal
competences and guidelines for developing the
school culture
Figure 2. selection of curriculum documents analysed
Original L1 Documents can be found in (LINK TO FOLDER). The English versions of these documents, originally
published by the Albanian National Agency for Education, can be found in (LINK TO FOLDER) and the
surveyed documents can be found in (LINK TO FOLDER).
4/AL
The selection of subjects for our sub-study was based on the focus of the MoU of CA21114 which is History,
Maths and Science. For this reason, we decided to focus on the analysis of History and Biology for grade 9,
lower secondary as this would also allow us to compare between different subjects of the same level. Even
within the documents (History curriculum and Biology Curriculum), we focused only on the parts which
would provide more input for our analysis, that were mostly related to students’ competences on that
specific subject, especially the parts of the curriculum which focus on relation between subject competences
and key competences. In the analysis document the number of pages analysed is given for each document,
but both researchers have agreed that a more in-depth analysis should be considered.
Other subjects were excluded from the analysis due to the focus of the COST Action and time limit the team
had for completing the task. However, it is possible to later add more subjects if necessary for the
comparative analyses carried out in the COST Action.
The current Biology curriculum derives from 2017 and the History curriculum from 2019. The main difference
between these curricula and the previous one is that now the curriculum focuses on competences and
learning outcomes rather than objectives. The curriculum has not been renewed ever since, but considering
that the usual cycle for renewing the entire curriculum in most countries is around 10 years, we are hoping
that the new version of the curriculum would have more emphasis in the disciplinary literacy elements as
well as the language expected by the students to achieve academic proficiency in all subjects.
4. Survey results: Data, analysis, findings & reflections,
Overall, the findings show that disciplinary literacies are implicitly and explicitly present in the curricula of
History and Biology, grade 9 lower secondary. Given the shared decision in WG3 to focus on productive
disciplinary literacies, furthermore, means that those aspects of curricular text that relate to
understanding/perceiving the importance of the particular ways in which subjects convey knowledge are not
accounted for in the analysis unless they are accompanied with elements that relate to production-based
engagement with the content. In other words, disciplinary literacies may quite often be implicated but not
framed in terms of productive aspects beyond the coded occurrences.
Figure 3 below provides the overall number of coded instances of productive disciplinary literacies across the
Albanian curriculum texts. Two subjects were analysed, and as the table shows, the overall number of
different code types is rather similar. The differences rather lie in the distribution of “types” of disciplinary
literacies.
As we can observe from the Figure 3, the differences of productive disciplinary mentions between subjects
are not considerable. The most common ways in which the curriculum texts point to productive disciplinary
literacy is through references to students’ ability to perform verbal actions based on thinking skills, such as
explain, identify, give arguments, and evaluate (coded as CV) which were the most commonly used. As per
students’ productive use of language for showing learning (coded as PL) the most frequently used forms
were: communicate, present, discuss, debate. What occurred clearly less frequently were references to digital
literacy elements (DD) which were generally found in Digital competence especially in Biology (see figure 5)
but which were not mentioned in any competences including Digital competence in History (see figure 4).
Elements of subject-specific realia (TT), extracting information from visual elements (VV) and different genre
types (GG) were mentioned less frequently also in both subjects. Closer interpretation of these is needed.
CV
History 53
Biology 43
TOTAL 96
GG
5
11
16
PL
24
15
39
DD
6
13
18
5/AL
VV
6
10
16
TT
9
9
18
OTH
0
5
5
Figure 3. Coded instances of productive disciplinary literacies according to subjects.
As already mentioned, the team decided to focus more on the analysis of the parts of the curricula which
focuses on the relation between subject competences and key competences. The Albanian curricula
emphasize 7 key competences:
1. Communication and expression competence
2. Thinking competence
3. Learning competence
4. Competence for life, entrepreneurship and environment
5. Personal competence
6. Civic competence
7. Digital competence
The team decided to focus on analysing the mentions of productive disciplinary literacy in relation to key and
subject competences based on the following arguments:
1. Communication and Expression Competence
• Specific Language Use: Disciplinary literacy requires understanding and using the specific language
and forms of communication relevant to a particular field, whether it's scientific terminology,
historical discourse, or mathematical symbols.
• Effective Expression: Mastery of disciplinary literacy enhances a student’s ability to express complex
ideas clearly and accurately within that discipline, contributing to overall communication and
expression competence.
2. Thinking Competence
• Critical and Analytical Thinking: Disciplinary literacy fosters critical and analytical thinking skills. It
requires students to interpret, analyze, and evaluate information specific to a discipline, which aligns
with broader thinking competences.
• Problem-Solving: Engaging deeply with disciplinary texts and problems helps students develop
problem-solving skills that are essential for thinking competence.
3. Learning Competence
• Metacognitive Skills: Disciplinary literacy promotes metacognitive skills, as students need to be
aware of and regulate their understanding of discipline-specific content and strategies.
• Independent Learning: The ability to navigate and comprehend complex texts independently within
a discipline enhances overall learning competence, making students more effective and autonomous
learners.
4. Competence for Life, Entrepreneurship, and Environment
• Practical Application: Disciplinary literacy equips students with the ability to apply academic
knowledge to real-world contexts, essential for life competences and entrepreneurship.
• Informed Decision-Making: Understanding environmental science, for example, requires disciplinary
literacy in scientific texts and data, which is crucial for making informed decisions about
environmental issues.
5. Personal Competence
• Self-Discipline and Responsibility: Mastery of disciplinary literacy often requires self-discipline and
responsibility, as students need to manage complex reading and writing tasks.
• Personal Growth: Engaging deeply with specific subjects can contribute to personal growth and selfawareness, aspects of personal competence.
6. Civic Competence
• Understanding Civic Issues: Disciplinary literacy in social sciences or history, for example, enables
students to understand civic issues, historical contexts, and political theories, enhancing civic
competence.
6/AL
Informed Participation: Effective communication within a discipline helps students articulate their
viewpoints and participate in civic discussions and debates.
7. Digital Competence
• Navigating Digital Information: Disciplinary literacy includes the ability to effectively use digital tools
and resources specific to a discipline, such as scientific databases, digital archives, or online journals.
• Digital Communication: Competence in digital communication within a discipline is crucial, whether
it’s through writing emails, reports, or participating in online discussions relevant to the field.
Figure 4 and 5 below include data regarding the mentions of productive disciplinary literacy for each specific
competence, for each subject.
•
Competences
Communication
Thinking
Learning
Comp for life
Personal
Civic
Digital
CV
3
5
5
2
1
8
3
GG
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
PL
4
1
3
1
1
0
4
DD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VV
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
TT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OTH
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Figure 4. Coded instances of productive disciplinary literacies according to key competences for History,
grade 9.
What we can observe from the figure above is that the focus is mostly on command verbs and somehow on
productive use of language, and there are no mentions of digital literacy elements (DD) and subject-specific
realia (TT). What might also get the attention is data from the Civic competence. While Civic competence can
be perceived as “Civic competence is a combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that enable a
person to perform real-world tasks such as active civic engagement including skills of communication,
problem solving, critical and creative reflection, decision making, responsibility, respect for other values”, we
identified only Command Verbs in this section which might raise the question: how can students develop
Civic Competence without the productive use of language, subject-sepcific realia, genre types, etc.?
The same analysis is done for Biology, grade 9. The results are almost very similar to those found in History,
grade 9.
Competences
Communication
Thinking
Learning
Comp for life
Personal
Civic
Digital
CV
2
14
8
1
10
2
2
GG
4
4
0
1
2
0
0
PL
8
2
1
2
1
0
0
DD
1
0
1
2
0
0
9
VV
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
TT
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
OTH
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
Figure 5. Coded instances of productive disciplinary literacies according to key competences for Biology,
grade 9.
Although we can identify mentions of productive disciplinary literacy elements regarding all categories (genre
types, digital literacy, subject-specific realia, etc.) again command verbs occur more frequently. One
reflection regarding Civic competence is that there are only 2 mentions of productive literacy elements,
7/AL
command verbs. Again, many questions can raise based on the data from figure 5 and it is important to
address the low frequency of productive literacy mentions especially when it comes to competences.
What we found interesting during the analysis is that there were frequent mentions of productive
disciplinary literacy elements in the part of History curriculum which is dedicated to the connection between
History and 5 other fields of study: Languages and Communication, Society and Environment, Mathematics,
Technology and IT, and Natural sciences. Not only did we notice that all types of disciplinary literacy elements
are mentioned in this part of the curriculum, but also the ratio between the total number of words and the
mentions of disciplinary literacy elements is notably high.
For example:
1. The connection between History and Language and Communication (pg. 15 Al_ENCURR)
The student:
•
interprets (CV) texts and different forms of communication, including historical ones;
•
expresses opinions (PL), reasons, discusses (PL), argues (CV) and makes argumentative debates (PL)
with historical themes;
•
selects (CV) the appropriate historical information in the text;
•
uses spelling rules for writing a historical material;
•
distinguishes (CV) different literary genres: diary (GG), memoir (GG) and historical novel (GG);
•
uses literary-artistic works (TT) as a source of historical information;
•
uses Albanian folklore (TT) as a historical source;
•
uses the work of the revivalists to evaluate (CV) the role they played in the history of Albania.
Despite the fact that the task was interesting and valuable, some challenges were faced during its completion
and it also sparked numerous questions and prompted extensive reflection. The coding process involved
some challenges that had to do, for example, with the fact that it was not always straightforward to
differentiate between different categories provided in the coding key. Agreement was reached by shared
discussion between the researchers and joint decisions. The Finnish team reports that we are aware that in
other country teams decisions might have been taken differently - cross-country joint reflection is therefore,
needed as an important step for refining the coding instrument. The Albanian team agrees with this
statement and admits that the collaboration among countries will definitely improve the quality of our work
and of those researchers who might be willing to use the instrument for further studies. We also consider
that this is not the only limitation of our study. The limited time we had for the study allowed us to focus only
on two subjects, History and Biology for grade 9, lower secondary. The results of this study do not necessarily
reflect all the other subjects, of all study programmes. Finally, the fact that we focused only on explicit
mentions of disciplinary literacy elements in these two subjects, does not mean that there are no implicit
mentions which we do consider of high relevance too.
In the next session of this report the researchers have expressed some reflections on the task including many
questions. One common question that emerged during the process was: “Does the National Curriculum draw
teachers' attention to the need to build their students' academic language/ disciplinary literacies as an
essential parallel process accompanying content-learning?"
Whatever is being taught or learned, it would be impossible to effectively be achieved if language was not
used. The National Curriculum implicitly and explicitly poses on the importance of languages while learning
8/AL
content subjects such as Biology in this case. In the translated version of this part of the curriculum, the word
“languages” is mentioned 19 times some of which are found below:
• explains clearly and accurately, orally or in writing, the meaning of new terms (words, concepts)
using appropriate language and vocabulary; (Pg 13)
• correctly express an opinion or request, orally or in writing, in the native or foreign language, for a
situation designated (for guidance, assistance, information, orientation, etc.) interacting in a group or
in a classroom; (Pg.13)
• In order to analyze and evaluate the results during the study of phenomena and laws in the natural
sciences, the student must develop communication skills and use the language and terminology of
science correctly; (Pg. 24)
• If the student reads, writes or expresses his thoughts fluently about scientific information on the
universe, subjects, air pollutants, water, he correctly develops the competence of communication in
the Albanian language, (Pg. 24)
• In addition, in presenting explanations or clarifying his/her solutions, he/she will be aware of the
importance of correct use of language and terminology in science and technology. (Pg. 12)
As we can observe from the examples, the curriculum emphasizes the importance of language, including
foreign languages in order to achieve academic proficiency in any subject and this might be considered an
important stepping stone which needs to be taken into consideration when the Agency for Quality Assurance
for Pre-university Education decides to renew the existing curricula not only in the subjects analyzed in this
report, but in all subjects accross levels.
5. Researchers’ reflections on the task.
Considering the long experience in teaching and the research interest in EFL, and the methods of teaching
and learning, working with the national curriculum was not a new task. What was new in fact was the focus
on disciplinary literacies and how the curriculum of History and Biology for grade 9, lower secondary,
suggests the development of disciplinary literacies. The detailed analysis on command verbs, students’
productive use of language, genre types, digital literacy elements, subject specific realia and visual elements,
made me reflect on what the curricula offers and how it helps the academic achievements of students.
Another interesting reflection regards the instrument we used to analyse the curricula, the CDF table, which
was not just a simple instrument but a thought provoking one, encouraging discussion and reflection
between team members on how the curricula can improve to meet students’ needs as well as the standards
of other European countries.
Considering the limited amount of time, we had for this task and its complexity, I think it should only be
considered as the beginning of a more in-depth analysis of the Albanian curriculum across levels and subjects
which might later be presented to representatives of the Agency for Quality Assurance at the Pre-university
Education in the form of a report including recommendations. The reports produced by representatives of
other countries who undertook this task in this COST Action, will serve as examples for recommendations the
Albanian team can suggest to the Agency for Quality Assurance at the Pre-university Education. (Merita
Hoxha)
I was in charge of training masters’ students studying in teaching English as a foreign language at the
University of Tirana, and working closely with them in understanding the task. Once students produced the
first drafts, the documents were discussed in our team and the most qualitative ones (lower secondary history
and biology) were analyzed and improved following the approved-upon format. The exercise was really
important for the future students. 121 students participated in the exercise. The students had never before
been exposed to CLIL concepts, so this exercise was very useful to them. It is a great opportunity to continue
using the standardized format, which is now much more user-friendly with the students of the following
years, as students’ feedback was very positive and they found it very useful to learn and reflect upon using
CLIL in their teaching (Gerda Sula).
9/AL
References.
Çekrezi. R. (2011). “CLIL and teacher training”. PROCEDIA, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier.
Language Education Policy profile report. Albania. (2015-2017). Ministry of Education and Sports, Albania
and Council of Europe. Language Policy Education Policy Division / Education Department Council of Europe
Strasbourg www.coe.int/lang
Hoxha. M., & Bejtja. L (2024). ”Albanian alumni students’ perceptions on CLIL. What do they want us to
know?”. Paper presented at the Conference Language Evolution in the Digital Age. The impact on
Communication, Literature, Civilization and Teaching. Albania.
Sula. G., Zahaj. S., & Hoxha. M. (2024) “Unleashing Student Motivation and Engagement through Content
and Language Integrated Learning and Video Integration in Physics Education – Insights from an Albanian
Case Study”. Journal of Learning for Development (in print)
Sula. G., & Hoxha. M. (2024) ”Unveiling the Transformative Impact of CLIL and Video Integration in teaching
Physics amidst the Pandemic”. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on "Innovations and
Perspectives of Contemporary Education”. Albania
10/AL
Austria National Report
1. Team & Process
The five members of the Austrian National Curriculum Analysis Team are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. The Austrian National Curriculum Analysis Team
Members & Affiliation
Interest in COST and Disciplinary Discourse
Tatjana Bacovsky-Novak
PhD researcher on lesson planning in CLIL in
University of Vienna
engineering and technology at secondary
level; qualified EFL and Psychology/Philosophy
teacher
Christiane Dalton-Puffer*
Long-term interest in CLIL and disciplinary
University of Vienna
literacy in additional languages; university
professor in English linguistics
Silvia RiederPost-doc researcher and teacher educator;
Marschallinger
expertise in design-based interventions
Kirchliche Pädagogische
supporting disciplinary literacies; qualified
Hochschule Wien-Krems
history and EFL teacher
Ute Smit
EMI specialist, English in tertiary education;
University of Vienna
English as a Lingua Franca; university
professor in English linguistics; qualified
mathematics & EFL teacher
Sarah Wirnsperger
MA student in teacher education (English/
University of Vienna
Digital Humanities) Student co-researcher at
Department of English
*AUSTRIA National Curriculum TEAM LEADER
The AT-TEAM was coordinated by Christiane Dalton-Puffer (CDP). Sarah Wirnsperger located the latest curriculum documents and carried out the
translations (using DeepL and subsequent human editing). The other team members including CDP divided up the analysis of subject curricula according to
their personal expertise and availability and agreed on cross-checks by another team member.
1/AT
2. Austrian National School System
Figure 1 is a schematic illustration of how the Austrian school system is organized from preschool
to tertiary-level instruction.
Figure AT 2.1. Organization of the Austrian school system
●
Compulsory formal education starts at age 5 when children have to join half-day Kindergarten
provision one year before entering school.
●
Primary level “Volksschule” starts at age 6. This is the only phase where the Austrian education
system is comprehensive, there being only one school type which everyone between the ages of 6
and 10 attends.
●
At age 10 the system bifurcates into two options: general middle school (Mittelschule) and academic
school (Gymnasium). Gymnasium, the academic track, then runs through until age 18 unless pupils
switch to a vocational form of upper secondary education.
●
In rural areas where the next academic school is relatively far away, the majority of 10 year-olds
attend middle school, many then moving on to upper secondary academic or vocational at age
14/15. There are two assessment levels in this school-type for the core subjects German L1,
Mathematics and EFL, namely Standard and Standard-AHS.
2/AT
●
Gymnasium. Unlike in many other countries, this academic school type runs all the way through
from grade 5-12. The national school leaving exam (Matura) at age 18 gives school-leavers the right
to attend university. In urban areas, the majority of pupils of any age-cohort attends lower
secondary Gymnasium, turning the Gymnasium into a weakly selective comprehensive school and
urban middle schools effectively into reception schools for recent immigrants with low levels of
German.
●
Dual track vocational school. This is for young people learning a craft or a trade via an
apprenticeship. One day at school per week or blocked over 6 weeks/year. There is also a track
which additionally leads to university entrance qualification.
●
Vocational Schools: These upper secondary schools come in two durations: 3 years (until age 17) or 5
(until age 19). The five-year version provides university access on top of formal professional
qualifications. Offered in large numbers of different specialisations from agriculture, via business
studies to mechanical engineering and environmental technology.
3. The Austrian Survey
Figure 2 illustrates which Austrian curricular documents were translated into English and surveyed for
mentions of productive disciplinary literacies, as described in Chapter 1 of this technical report.
Subjects
General Curriculum
Biology
History
Maths
German L1
English Foreign Language
Lower
Secondary
(Middle School
& Gymnasium)
x
x
x
x
x
x
Upper
Secondary
(Gymnasium)
x
x
x
x
x
x
Figure AT 3.1: Austrian curriculum documents translated into English and surveyed
Original L1 Documents can be found in (LINK TO FOLDER), the English translation of these documents can be
found in (LINK TO FOLDER) and the surveyed documents can be found in (LINK TO FOLDER).
The lower secondary curriculum is very recent, having come into effect at the beginning of the 2023/24
schoolyear, starting with grade level 5. Thus, all lower secondary schools will fully implement the new
curriculum by 2026/27. Contrary to earlier generations of curricula, where lower secondary “Gymnasium”
had a separate curriculum document (published jointly with upper secondary “Gymnasium”), all lower
secondary schools will now follow the same curriculum.
The foundations of the upper secondary curriculum for Gymnasium date back to 1985. However, the
curricula of individual subjects, as well as the General Part have been in continuous overhaul reflected in
almost annual alterations and amendments (see Austrian Legal Information System:
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10008568)
The general part of the national curriculum was analyzed because of its significance in terms of crosscurricular educational goals (such as academic language development) and pedagogical principles.
The selection of the subjects to analyse was predefined by WG3-internal agreements for the set-up of the
curriculum survey task. The only slight Austrian divergence, as it were, concerns “science”, as this is not one
3/AT
subject but three (physics, chemistry, biology) in Austrian secondary schools. Biology was selected as the
only of the three science subjects which is taught at every grade level across school types. This means that
the five subjects mentioned in Table 2 were surveyed across grades 5-8 at lower secondary and grades 9-12
at upper secondary. No curricula of upper secondary vocational schools were analysed because of the large
number of specialisations and, hence, large number of individual curricula.
Section 4. Survey Results: Data, analysis, findings & reflections
Our survey of the Austrian results will start out discussing the general part of the curriculum, as this covers
both levels of secondary education. We then proceed subject by subject, differentiating between lower and
upper if and when the curricula show discussion-worthy differences. A further element of the analysis has
been to take a comparative look at the different components of the DL construct and how much or how little
they figure in the Austrian curricula analysed. The Austrian report will conclude with reflections and
recommendations.
4.1. Analysis per subject
The general part
The curriculum states the overall legal mandate of the general secondary education to be (among other
things) to “contribute to the education of young people by supporting them in the acquisition of knowledge
and the development of competences” (p.2), a statement that can be interpreted as a very general indication
of a potential role of language in this undertaking; an interpretation that is underscored by the topicalization
of language at four key points in the General Curriculum:
●
Firstly, the text mentions “the 4C model” (no source given), as an overarching conceptualisation for
the goal-setting within the curriculum. One of its four C’s is Communication (in addition to
Collaboration, Creativity and Critical Thinking).
●
Secondly, Language and Communication Education is presented as one of five general educational
areas that form the frame of reference for the contributions of the individual subjects. This particular
educational area is described as follows:
Language and communication education
The ability to express, think, communicate and act is highly dependent on language skills.
In every subject, pupils must be enabled to utilise and expand their cognitive, emotional,
social and creative capacities with and through language - e.g. also in the form of
figurative language. (p.3)
Interestingly, language also surfaces in connection with another educational area, namely
Creativity and Design Education where it is stipulated that “expressing thoughts and feelings
verbally and non-verbally is an essential part of human life” (p.4).
●
Thirdly, one of the eight General Didactic Principles (p.8-10) is entitled “Language-sensitive subject
teaching takes place in all subjects” (Principle 7). We quote the description here in full as it
encapsulates many aspects of Disciplinary Literacy. In addition, Digital Literacy has its own Didactic
Principle.
Educational language skills are an essential prerequisite for success at school, for later
opportunities on the labour market and for participation in political, economic, cultural and
social life. Pupils must be able to use specialised language, express thoughts and ideas, ask
questions, name, depict and describe objects (CV) as well as grasp, justify, argue (CV) and
interpret facts. In addition to subject-specific knowledge, educational language skills are
necessary for these language activities. These are taught gradually, age-appropriately and
continuously in all subjects and across all school levels and types. Language-sensitive teaching
serves to develop skills in everyday, educational and specialised language. Pupils become aware
of the different registers of a language and can use them appropriately for the situation.
4/AT
Teachers actively support the learning of subject-specific vocabulary or the specialised language
of the subject matter. Lessons create language-stimulating situations and offer pupils the
opportunity to try out and practise language in an appreciative environment. Teachers
themselves act as language role models, pay attention to the way they express themselves and
use various methods and task formats to implement language-sensitive subject teaching. (p.10).
●
Fourthly and finally, when the general curriculum turns to its thirteen “overarching themes” that
need to be addressed by all subjects in order develop transversal competences in the pupils, there is
theme 10 “Language education and reading”. Once again the key role of language in the
educational process is highlighted and the need for teachers to have a “language conscious attitude”
is stated. Reading is highlighted as a key to access knowledge but also to other sign systems (visual
literacy) apart from writing.
In sum then, The General Part of the Austrian Curriculum for secondary schools definitely draws educators’
attention to the role of language in education, based on some strong claims and principles. Because of the
historically layered nature of the document, however, no strong coherent concept is visible. Themes and
principles have been added at different points in time reflecting the conceptualisations and key ideas of the
day. The vital question will be, however, in how far these principles are really taken up in the individual
subject curricula.
Biology
The lower secondary biology curriculum rests on a 4-part competence model. We find it remarkable that
one of the components is “Justify points of view and act reflectively (S)”, putting a lot of emphasis on
reasoning in the subject of biology (explain, evaluate, justify in CDF-terms). In fact, also another one of the
three competences subsumes language via “communicating knowledge”. As can be expected from this
configuration of the overall biology competence model, the skill-descriptions elaborating the competence
areas feature a series of language behaviours, most of them pertaining to the CDF-construct. A couple of
other more general productive language use behaviours are mentioned as well. However, non-verbal modes
of subject-specific communication get relatively short-shrift with just one mention of visual elements of
subject literacy (p.2) and one of Digital DL (p.1), tool-based or realia-based DL aspects are not mentioned at
all (although use of tools is presumably implied when experiments are mentioned).
The curriculum does not specify which of these active communicating behaviours are to be mastered in the
oral and/or written mode. No exemplifications are given for concrete genres or speech events that would
require learners to apply the science-communication competences they are presumably acquiring through
their biology education. The progression of students’ DL competences via the 4 lower-sec years is captured via
a statement saying that the increasing complexity of areas of application will take care of making DL
competences more complex over the years. We are not convinced of that.
Our bottom line for the lower-secondary curriculum: it contains promising basics for attention to language in
biology learning and assessment but does not concretize them.
The upper secondary years rely much on the same biology competence model as the lower years, the main
differences between the two curricula being the topics to be covered. When sub-competences are spelled out
(p.171-172), it becomes obvious that in actual fact many of them are grounded in language/literacy
behaviours, such as justifying standpoints in social discourse (CV), explain biological processes and phenomena
(CV), describe biological processes and phenomena. (CV), formulate hypotheses about biological processes
and phenomena (CV); comparing (CV), interpreting (CV), justify positions (CV), argue in a technically correct
and consistent manner (CV), evaluate facts and problems (CV).
Several mentions are made of “participation in social discourse” on the basis of the biology knowledge
acquired. However, this is not concretized in terms of which (language) behaviours would count as such
participation. There is no mention of genres or language functions in this connection, but the upper secondary
curriculum does mention some potential contexts or even genres where “participation in social discourse”
5/AT
could be realized: “nature conservation strategies, health concepts, nutrition plans, (GG)” (p.172). Uppersecondary also mentions speaking and writing abilities once. Interestingly these are not positioned as
something that prepares one for “participation in social discourses” at large, but as something that prepares
students for the school-leaving Matura exam.
In sum, the Austrian biology curriculum does cast verbal communication in a surprisingly central role via giving
it much prominence in its 3-part Competence Model and also via including language behaviours (mostly via
CDFs) in many of the skills descriptions that are based on the model. In that sense building disciplinary
literacies is not only a parallel process accompanying content-learning but an integral part of it. This we find
quite remarkable. However, zero guidance is given to teachers in terms of how they might bring about those
language behaviours.
History
In the Austrian school system, ‘history’ is conceived of as a subject cluster of history, social sciences and
political education.
The lower secondary history curriculum is very learner- and competency-centred, e.g., by using a great
number of command verbs in certain parts of the curriculum or by structuring the content according to
competences. However, it does not point out the importance – or even just the role – of language for that.
This issue is sometimes aggravated by the use of very dense nominalized phrases, obscuring the roles of
learners when engaging with a topic or what verbalizations should be involved at this stage (e.g., “critical
work with sources”). This seems to be a missed opportunity. For each grade, however, the curriculum lists a
number of can-do statements, which does make up for this somewhat. Here, there’s usually a cognitive
command verb or another action verb entailing productive language use that shows what learners need to
do (and thus verbalize) – often in combination with different media (visuals (VV), different text types (GG),
digital media (DD)).
This curriculum nicely outlines what the different subject-specific competences entail in terms of subjectspecific procedures, which concepts need to be considered when teaching history or political education, or
which topic areas need to be included. It also lists a great number of cognitive operations and learning
objectives, but it never once mentions that doing these things needs a very specific type of language and
that it would be the teacher’s job to help learners verbalize their disciplinary skills. Moreover, because of its
heavy use of abstract concepts and nominalized phrases, it obscures somewhat
●
●
●
what learners should really do with the long list of content areas,
what some of the set learning objectives really involve,
and what type of language this involves.
It is quite possible that this could lead to insecurity among teachers (and consequently among learners who
prepare for exams etc.). Despite being very current (published 2023) - and despite the rise of language-aware
teaching also outside the CLIL context - this document again misses the opportunity to draw content teachers’
attention to the role of language for teaching their subject.
The upper secondary history curriculum does relate to many aspects of disciplinary literacies, if only at certain
points and often only at the surface level. For example, it highlights that language and language reflection
contribute to general areas of education (see General Part of the national curriculum) and how this crystalizes
in this particular subject cluster (p. 150). Moreover, it suggests a differentiation based on a system of
command verbs pertaining to different levels of cognitive complexity. However, the curriculum never explains
what that would mean in concrete terms. It also never mentions explicitly that it would be the teacher’s
responsibility to teach learners how to apply historical or political skills linguistically. A good place for that
would be the “didactic principles” section. However, this section - and many other parts, and even some of
the competences to be taught - focus clearly on passive familiarization with and understanding of conceptual
knowledge. What is more, despite providing ample space for central subject-specific concepts and
considerations, the curriculum does not discuss how subject-specific genres or media-types should be
included. This is only implied in some of the learning objectives, where the granularity is not clear either (e.g.,
6/AT
should learners conduct complete historical deconstructions or build up complete historical narratives, i.e.,
develop genre-specific skills, or is it enough to work on the level of individual functions without putting them
together?).
To conclude, while this curriculum implicitly expects learners to apply disciplinary skills using language, it is
not very clear concerning the extent or the ways teachers need to consider that in their teaching.
Mathematics
The lower secondary mathematics curriculum is based on a competence model involving four core processes
for “doing mathematics”:
●
●
●
●
Modelling & Problem Solving,
Operating & Calculating,
Representing & interpreting,
Assuming & Justifying.
The process-descriptions mention visual, symbolic, textual and verbal resources they involve. In its didactic
principles the curriculum foregrounds reasoning, explaining and arguing as central to developing
mathematical understanding, but also explicitly mentions digital literacy elements as well as mathematical
realia: e.g. spreadsheet programmes, dynamic geometry software, interactive exercises, calculators and
graphic calculators (p.3). Visual literacy elements are foregrounded in the description of many
competence/content areas to be covered at each of the four grade levels: axially symmetrical figures, use of
different forms of representation, crosstables, diagrams, (p.4—15). Digital technology is mentioned in support
of certain competence areas (p.10-11, p.15).
Throughout most of its sections the curriculum combines references to language with references to other
semiotic modes. In other words, this curriculum understands mathematical competences as requiring
multimodal productive skills and does not allow for a clear distinction between ‘language’ and other semiotic
modes.
The upper secondary mathematics curriculum has only been partially coded in view of its very extensive
module descriptions which are all similar in character. Our analysis consists of the curriculum’s general part
and the specific competence modules for Grade 11, as this is the focal upper secondary grade for our analysis.
(i.e. module description for Grades 9, 10 and 12 were NOT coded).
The general parts of the curriculum – although rather short – specify student multimodal practices quite
extensively, referring to CV, VV, TT, GG and VV. For example, the Action Dimension of the curriculum’s
mathematical competence model prominently includes multimodal meaning making amongst experts and
laypeople; the text refers explicitly to “activities that have to do with the translation of mathematical
representations, relationships and facts into everyday language (PL OR GG) as well as the interpretation and
documentation of results (PL OR VV)” (p. 166) but also “Critical-argumentative work” (p.166) including arguing,
questioning, exploring boundaries and justifying. It is partially difficult to draw clear lines between CV, PL, VV
and GG.
In those parts of the curriculum where the content of the so-called competence-modules is described, (e.g.
p.169), competences are mainly mathematical, reflected in the predominantly mathematical semiotic modes
learners need to use, e.g. solve, calculate or ‘describe’ by calculation. Also, the only mention of ‘Define’ does
not entail a linguistic definition but the appropriate calculation. Generally, the module-specific competence
descriptors, are rather thin and underspecified. There is very little reference to anything else but
mathematical content. This stands in clear contrast to the Austrian mathematics curriculum of the lower
secondary grades where the literacy elements get much more attention throughout.
7/AT
German as L1
The lower secondary German L1 curriculum aims at “introducing pupils to literary and oral culture and
practice by teaching them the basic skills of communicating, reading and writing and to develop
comprehensive language skills” (p.1.). In this endeavor the curriculum mentions not only different types of
verbal texts (“literary and pragmatic”), p.1) but also other media formats and the “multimodal world of
signs” (p.1)
As is presumably the case in all subjects that are skills-based (such as languages, mathematics, sports, or art),
the German L1 curriculum encapsulates a tension between declarative and procedural knowledge. While the
opening statement of the whole curriculum declares that “Language is both a medium and an object in German
lessons” (p.1.), the main focus throughout the remaining sections of the curriculum seems to be on the
procedural, i.e. the medium. Five pairs of central concepts are established (Standard and Change, Content and
Form, Diversity and Identity, Mediality and Modality, Aesthetics and Pragmatics) which need to be
understood, reflected upon, evaluated etc., all of which should eventually “help pupils to develop into selfdetermined, critical and diversely educated personalities” (p.2). Thus, while the curriculum often mentions
the pupils’ desired ability to reflect, analyse, compare, or discuss literary and other texts, there is no indication
of which linguistic/literary concepts and terminology pupils would need to learn in order to enable them to
talk about texts and uses of language. The curriculum conveys only a very weak sense of there being such a
thing as disciplinary literacy with regard to Language Studies. There is also no indication of how the teachers
are supposed to bring about these abilities in the pupils. In sum, the German L1 curriculum embraces a
conception of literacy as something generic rather than subject-specific. The dimension of transfer to pupils’
work in other subjects is never even alluded to and thus left entirely to the pupils themselves.
Interestingly, the transversal nature of literacy is mentioned directly on the first page of the upper secondary
German L1 curriculum, with the blunt statement that “The German lessons are to be seen as linked to the
other subjects. They should secure and expand the linguistic means so that the pupils can communicate
appropriately about factual topics, about relationships and about language” (p.116). A similar statement
opens the presentation of the Didactic Principles: “The diverse tasks of language suggest meaningful contexts
of action for German lessons. In doing so, they challenge students to work in interdisciplinary and
interdisciplinary subjects“ (p.117). Productive language ability is related to the production of a wide range of
genres from private, public, journalistic life, especially summaries, letters to the editor, discussions (p.118) but
also to write text types that support the learning process (p.118) as well as oral presentations of information.
However, the learning goals of the subject German L1 are chiefly couched in terms of non-linguistic states and
non-linguistic actions such as recognize, understand, reflect, grasp, open up tensions, problematize etc. The
only concrete linguistic action called for is “describe” (pp. 121-125).
German is referred to as “object of investigation” as well as “specialist content and methods” – beyond that
there is no indication that specialist language or DL for German Studies is an issue. That is to say linguistics,
literary and media studies are not treated as full subject areas with their own terminology etc. similar to other
subjects.
English as a Foreign Language
The Austrian national curriculum does not feature individual curricula for different modern foreign
languages but bundles them in joint documents on “First foreign language” and “Second foreign language”
respectively. Since, in practice, English is the first foreign language for around 95% of pupils, we are here
analyzing the first foreign language curriculum. Across all school levels, the CEFR and Companion Volume
(2018) form the basis of the competence model for teaching modern foreign languages in the Austrian
education system.
8/AT
At lower secondary level curriculum goals are to “develop communicative competence [….] to communicate
in the foreign language in everyday life and at work […]” (p.1). Thus, listening, speaking, reading and writing
skills should “enable access to and the exchange of knowledge, experiences and information” via the
possibility to “independently grasp and understand simple foreign language factual and everyday texts” (p.1)
reaching CEFR level A2+/B1 in grade 8. The curriculum clearly aims for students to develop some awareness
of a large number of different text types (…) and aims at adequate command of productive language skills via
repeated mentions of generic productive language use such as “speaking coherently and writing” (p.2), or
“have short conversations”, “give simple information” (p.4). On the other hand, digital and visual literacy
skills are definitely sidelined in this curriculum.
The development of disciplinary literacies skills (or their foundations that could be transferred to content
subjects) does not seem to be a primary aim of the curriculum for lower secondary foreign language
teaching. This becomes evident in the relatively infrequent references made to verbal actions based in
thinking skills. Those that are present often pertaining to less complex thinking skills. No mention is made of
disciplinary aspects of the study of language itself.
The curriculum for upper secondary level foreign language learning introduces progressively more
challenging language skills, with students in the higher grades being expected to grasp more complex
meanings and have command of more elaborate language functions (B2 by the end of grade 12). Many of the
genre-related goals pertain to the students being able to produce very specific text types. This might need to
be reevaluated in the light of recent developments in AI text production tools, especially considering that
digital literacy skills receive almost no mention in this curriculum. Visual literacy skills are not mentioned at
all, which also seems like a missed chance in view of the extent of young people’s visual media consumption.
It is explicitly stated in the first sections of the curriculum that the language and communication skills should
also form the basis for similar literacy achievements in content subject disciplines. However, no concrete ideas
for how this can be achieved are present in the text. The foreign language teaching curriculum does not specify
any particular content areas that need to be covered. This is true also of the study of “language and literature”
which are not given any attention as content or knowledge areas.
4.2 Components of disciplinary literacy across subjects and levels
This section looks at the curricula mostly through a quantitative lens and seeks to answer the question which
aspects of DL are mentioned by Austrian curriculum authors to what extent across subjects and age levels.
As specified in section 2.3 of this technical report, the analytical framework for the curriculum analysis was
designed following the specifications of the Action’s WG1’s Definition of DL. The analysis tool’s seven
components are listed in Table AT 4.2.1 (see page 10). The table shows the absolute and weighted
frequencies of all mentions of DL in the curriculum documents that were analysed. Word-counts of the
curriculum documents (or the parts that were analysed) are also included in the table.
As can be gleaned especially from the weighted frequencies, the different subject curricula differ widely in
the extent to which they include references to disciplinary literacy. The general mean value of 23.9
mentions/1000 words of curriculum text is not really informative in this respect as there is considerable
dispersion. The content subject with the most explicit reference to DL is definitely history, at both
educational levels (59.5/1000w in lower, 45/1000w in upper). The general mean is also upped by the
frequent mentions of DL aspects in the EFL curriculum. EFL is actually the subject curriculum which has the
highest values, even higher than history. One might be inclined to think that this is not surprising for a
language subject, after all, linguistic competences are the core of language curricula. A look at the
curriculum for German (L1), however, demonstrates that this is by no means a matter of course. In fact, the
weighted frequencies in the German (L1) curriculum are among the lowest across subjects for both lower
and upper secondary.
9/AT
Table AT 4.2.1: Quantitative analysis of DL elements in different curricula
Subject
Age
Words
Biology and
Environmenta
l Education
1014*
1518*
*
1689
1014*
2823
1518*
*
3540
History and
Political
Education
Mathematics
First
Language
German
English as a
Foreign
Language
General Part
TOTALS
1014*
1518*
*
1014*
1518*
*
1014*
1518*
*
1968
4407
3714
2400
4600
2044
3868
1018
10500
1018
41553
absolute
or
weighted
a
Comman
d Verbs
(CV/PV)
Genr
e or
text
types
(GG)
9
w
Productiv
e
Language
(PL)
0
5.3
Digital
Literac
y (DD)
Visual
literac
y (VV)
5
1
1
2.9
0.6
0.6
0
4
a
27
3
12
w
13.7
1.5
6
Subject
specific
Realia
(TT)
All
Else
(OTH
)
0
0
Sum
across
aspects
16
9.5
0
0
2
46
23.4
a
67
26
22
20
29
4
w
23.7
9.2
7.8
7
10.2
1.4
a
34
38
24
15
31
9
8
159
w
0
168
59.5
9.6
10.7
6.8
4.2
8.7
2.5
2.2
45
a
28
4
18
4
35
0
0
89
w
6.3
0.9
4
0.9
7.9
a
6
5
9
2
7
2
0
w
1.6
1.3
2.4
0.5
1.9
0.5
a
3
10
8
0
1
0
w
1.5
4.1
3.3
a
7
4
3
w
1.5
0.9
0.7
a
9
56
w
4.4
a
57
w
0.4
0
0
0
56
3
2
0
27.4
27.4
1.5
1
72
120
8
0
2
14.7
18.6
31
a
6
0
0
w
0.5
absolute
253
218
weighted
6.1
5.2
CV
20.2
GG
PL
3
3
0.28
0.28
277
56
113
6.6
1.3
2.7
DD
VV
0
0
31
8.3
9
31
3.8
12.9
9
23
1.9
5
13
139
6.3
68
16
273
4.1
70.5
6
18
0.5
1.71
15
61
993
0.4
1.4
23.9
TT
OTH
ALL
*LS = lower secondary (both school types); **US = upper secondary academic (AHS)
Given the fact that the lower secondary curricula for all subjects are the most recent ones, one might have
expected a relative rise in DL visibility. In fact, there are no discernible trends for mentions to become more
from lower to upper or vice versa.
With regard to the different components of DL, Realia and Digital literacy are mentioned least often. Realia
actually appear only in History and Mathematics. Digital literacy is mentioned in all subjects except German
L1, though not very often as can be read from the 1.3 average/1000 words. Visual literacy gets mentioned
twice as often and is featured across all subjects except for upper secondary German L1 and EFL. The most
visual literacy prone subjects are History and lower secondary Mathematics. There is a general trend for
visual literacy to be (relatively) more prominent at the lower level.
Almost equal in weight are the three categories involving “use of language”, that is to say literacy in a more
traditional and more narrow sense. Mentions of different textual genres are particularly frequent in History
and EFL by a wide margin; in this category it was not always possible to discern active production of genres
from their recognition and evaluation. The command verbs based on the CDF-Construct (Dalton-Puffer
2013), on the other hand do refer to active uses of language to categorize, evaluate, explain causes, define
10/AT
(etc.) aspects of subject knowledge. They are spread over most of the subjects at all levels, with the notable
exception of German L1. The largest category, “Productive Use of Language”, encompasses the less specific
functional labels such as “being able to communicate in a wider social context”.
Table AT 4.2.2: Summary per DL component
TOTALS
secondary education 10-18
Words of curriculum text analysed:
41,553
a
w
253
6.1
Command Verbs (CV/PV)
218
5.2
Genre or text types (GG)
277
6.6
Productive use of Language (PL)
56
1.3
Digital Literacy (DD)
113
2.7
Visual literacy (VV)
15
0.4
Subject-specific Realia (TT)
61
1.4
All Else (OTH)
993
23.9
Total DL mentions
In sum, it can be said that each subject curriculum for each educational level is a world onto itself, as it were.
This is explained by the fact that each of the subject curricula has been authored by different groups of
specialists and practitioners, thus reflecting the disciplinary traditions of said subjects as well as the specific
conceptualisations of subject competences represented among the authoring group.
4.3 Possible implications or recommendations
As pointed out at the end of the last section, the Austrian secondary curriculum is a compendium combining
the work of a large number of subject-specific working groups. While the most recent curriculum, the one
for lower secondary, seems to have been authored following a guideline concerning the length of the
individual parts, and is thus more concentrated and easier to grasp in its entirety, no attempt has apparently
been made to impose a common ground on the conceptual level.
Some of this common ground is established in the general part of the National Curriculum (see section with
this title above) but the historically layered nature of this document makes it impossible to discern a unified
concept with regard to literacy education. There is none, even though literacy is addressed at several points
in the document. At the end of the section on the General part we asked the question of how the individual
subject curricula would take up these binding general principles. As has already become evident from our
analysis above, they do not do this to any significant extent.
It is true that schematic cross-references are made in each of the subject curricula to the Eight General
Didactic Principles of the general part (two of them being digital education and language education), as this
is a stipulation of the National Curriculum as a whole. However, these references are stated in a very
summary fashion (CITE Example) and specifications as to what these principles mean in the context of the
individual subject are missing. It looks as if the assumption were that subject teachers have deep knowledge
and awareness of the language requirements of their subject and so can smoothly implement the principles
of language education in their pedagogical actions without any guidelines being formulated in their subject’s
curriculum. Teacher education programmes in Austria pursue a similar strategy, as they may (but not all of
them do) include some general input on language in education. It is almost as if the General Part of the
11/AT
curriculum were mirrored in the teacher education programmes, but the subject specific PCK, pedagogical
training etc. do not systematically address the role of language for the learning of specific subject A/B/C.
Thus, a rehaul of the Austrian national curriculum would need to take place in order to inscribe the Eight
General Didactic Principles (Principle 7: “Language-sensitive subject teaching takes place in all subjects”;
Principle 2: “Teachers offer digitally enhanced instruction and use innovative teaching methods”) into each
subject curriculum. Such concretization and explicitness would be necessary in order to make an
implementation of language-sensitive subject teaching more likely. If language and more generally literacysensitive teaching were made explicit and linked to subject specific learning goals in each of the subjectcurricula, the officially commissioned teaching materials and textbooks would have to adapt and adopt
explicit literacy elements.
12/AT
Finland Na)onal Report
1. Team & Process
The five members of the Finnish Na6onal Curriculum Analysis Team is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. The Finnish Na/onal Curriculum Analysis Team
Members &
Interest in COST and Disciplinary
Affilia/on
Discourse
Tarja Nikula*,
Language Specialist: exper6se in
University of
conceptualising integra6on in CLIL and
Jyväskylä
subject-specific aspects of language
use in classrooms.
Sari Sulkunen,
L1 Specialist: exper6se in disciplinary
University of
literacies and in adolescent and adult
Jyväskylä
literacy and.
Sami Lehesvuori,
Science educa6on specialist: expe6se
University of
in learning interac6ons and dialogic
Jyväskylä
pedagogy in science classrooms.
Anne Tiermas,
University of
Helsinki
Teemu Rainamaa,
University of
Jyväskylä
Language Specialist: exper6se in
disciplinary literacies.
Language Specialist: MA student in
subject Finnish and research assistant
in applied linguis6cs projects.
*FINLAND Na6onal Curriculum TEAM LEADER
The FI-TEAM was coordinated by Tarja Nikula. The division of labour was agreed in a joint mee6ng between
the group members. Tarja Nikula was in charge of collec6ng L1 and EN versions of primary level history and
lower secondary biology curricula as well as the chosen parts of the general sec6on and their ini6al analysis
(there exist an EN version of the Na6onal Core Curriculum published by the Finnish Na6onal Agency for
Educa6on so the team did not produce own transla6ons). Sari Sulkunen & Teemu Rainamaa were jointly in
charge of collec6ng the lower and upper secondary curriculum of the subject mother tongue and literature
(L1 and EN versions) for primary and lower secondary level and their ini6al analysis. Sami Lehesvuori was in
charge of L1 and EN versions of lower secondary physics curriculum and its ini6al analysis and Anne Tiermas
for L1 and EN versions of primary level environmental studies. During the coding, the group met to agree on
problema6c cases, outline joint decisions and to agree on the division of labour in checking the coding for
each curriculum. Reflec6ve points were also discussed and each coder added points in the documents they
analysed.
1/FI
2. Na0onal School System
Figure 1 is a schema6c illustra6on of how the Finnish school system is organized (see also more detailed
informa6on provided on Finnish educa6on system by the Ministry of Educa6on and Culture at
hYps://okm.fi/en/educa6on-system).
Figure 1. Organiza6on of the Finnish educa6on system.
2.1 The details
These are the key features of the Finnish educa6on system:
- The way early childhood and care (between ages 0-3) is organized depends on the choices by
families. Children are either taken care of at home for the early childhood or they are in day care.
- According to the law, children must aYend pre-primary educa6on or other similar ac6vi6es that
prepare children for compulsory educa6on, one year before its start, usually in the age of 6.
- Compulsory educa6on begins when children are 7 years of age. Basic educa6on lasts for nine years
and is realized as comprehensive educa6on. It comprises primary level (grades 1-6, ages 7 to 12) that
is based on class teacher model and upper secondary level (grades 7-9, ages 13 to 15) realized
through subject teacher model.
- Aber the basic educa6on, students are en6tled to carry on with their studies un6l the age of 18.
They have the op6on of either going to general upper secondary schools or to voca6onal ins6tu6ons
(three year programmes, i.e. students typically aged 16-18 even though anyone can seek a place in
these ins6tu6ons).
- The school-leaving examina6on aber the general upper secondary schools (so called matricula6on
examina6on) is a final cer6fica6on of upper secondary studies and comple6ng the test is also the
most typical way to show eligibility to higher educa6on ins6tu6ons.
- Aber the upper secondary level, be it in general upper secondary or voca6onal schools, students can
apply for study right either in universi6es or universi6es of applied sciences.
In Finland, the great majority of schools are public, the number of private schools is very low. The level of
similarity between school provision in different parts of Finland is generally high. However, some selec6vity is
included in schools that emphasise certain areas such as music, sport, languages, arts. Bilingual provision (i.e.
CLIL) typically involves some form of student selec6on. Bilingual educa6on (either through immersion or
CLIL-type provision) is an established part of Finnish educa6on even though not very extensively offered. The
school system is officially bilingual but that means parallel educa6on in the na6onal languages: educa6on in
Finnish for Finnish speakers and in Swedish for Swedish speakers (plus some Sámi language schools in the
Sámi-speaking areas).
In Finland, the na6onal educa6on administra6on is organised at two levels. The Ministry of Educa6on and
Culture is responsible for the educa6on policy. Implemen6ng the policy is the responsibility of the Finnish
Na6onal Agency for Educa6on. It works with the Ministry to develop educa6onal objec6ves, content and
2/FI
methods for educa6on at different levels. The Finnish Na6onal Agency for Educa6on produces the Na6onal
Core Curriculum; there are separate curricula for basic educa6on and general upper secondary educa6on
and they are they are the key documents to steer the provision and implementa6on of educa6on. The
curriculum outlines the objec6ves, core contents and assessment criteria for all subjects and provides a
common ground for the local authori6es (most commonly municipali6es or joint municipal authori6es) for
administering and developing/wri6ng the local curricula. For this reason, the FIN team used the na6onal
Core Curriculum for the curriculum analyses (for more details on Finnish educa6on, see
hYps://www.oph.fi/en/sta6s6cs-and-publica6ons/publica6ons/finnish-educa6on-nutshell ).
3. This Survey
Figure 2 illustrates which Finnish curricular documents were collected in L1 and EN versions; the laYer were
analysed with the coding system described in Sec6on 1 of the whole report. In the Finnish context, the team
did not provide any transla6ons themselves because an English version of the core curriculum is available,
published by the Finnish Na6onal Agency for Educa6on.
Figure 2. Selec6on of curriculum documents analysed.
Original L1 Documents can be found in (LINK TO FOLDER). The English versions of these documents, originally
published by the Finnish Na6onal Agency for Educa6on who has granted permission for their reuse, can be
found in (LINK TO FOLDER) and the surveyed documents can be found in (LINK TO FOLDER).
The selec6on of subjects for our sub-study was based on including both social science, science and language
subjects. We hence included from primary level curricula for history, environmental studies and mother
tongue and literature (grades 3-6, for students aged 9-12) and from lower secondary level biology, physics
and mother tongue and literature (grades 7-9, for students aged 13-15). We chose history, biology and
physics as they are the core subject in this COST Ac6on and mother tongue and literature to allow for
comparison on how maYers of produc6ve disciplinary literacy are dealt with in language and content
subjects. More specifically, as the subject ‘mother tongue and literature’ includes 9 syllabi for different
mother tongues, we chose ‘Finnish as mother tongue and literature’ as more than 90% of students in Finland
study according to this syllabus.
3/FI
Apart from these subjects, other subjects were excluded due to the 6me limit the team had for comple6ng
the task. However, given that both Finnish and English versions of the curriculum texts are readily available, it
is possible to later add more subjects if deemed necessary for the compara6ve analyses carried out in the
COST ac6on. As regards the other parts besides the subject curricula, we only chose a specific selec6on as
the Na6onal Core Curriculum for Basic educa6on is a very long document, the original Finnish version
containing 472 pages, with 95 pages covering general maYers that pertain to maYers of general educa6onal
administra6on, working culture, assessment of learning, support in learning and school aYendance and
student welfare. Of these, in addi6on to subject curricula described above, we chose for analysis the sec6ons
that outline the transversal competences to be developed in and through all school subjects and provide
guidelines for developing the school culture, again a task for all subjects.
The current na6onal core curriculum derives from 2014, and its English version was published in 2016. We
have used this version in our coding. Over the years, some parts of the curriculum have been renewed,
specifically concerning specifying the final assessment in primary and lower secondary educa6on according
to specific assessment grades. The usual cycle for renewing the en6re curriculum is around 10 years so it is
likely that in the near future there will be a new version coming out.
4. Survey results: Data, analysis, findings & reflec0ons
The data consisted of the en6re curriculum texts for the six subjects introduced above. In addi6on, a part of
the general sec6on pertaining to transversal competencies and development of school culture were
analysed.
Overall, the findings show that disciplinary literacies are frequently present in the curricula for all subjects
studied. Given the shared decision in WG3 to focus on produc've disciplinary literacies, furthermore, means
that those aspects of curricular text that relate to understanding/perceiving the importance of the par6cular
ways in which subjects convey knowledge are not accounted for in the analysis unless they are accompanied
with elements that relate to produc6on-based engagement with the content. In other words, disciplinary
literacies may quite oben be implicated but not framed in terms of produc6ve aspects beyond the coded
occurrences.
The following table (Figure 3) provides the overall number of coded instances of produc6ve disciplinary
literacies across the Finnish curriculum texts from the two educa6onal levels. Three subjects were analysed
at each level, and as the table shows, the overall number of different code types is rather similar. The
differences rather lie in the distribu6on of “types” of disciplinary literacies. The most common ways in which
the curriculum texts point to produc6ve disciplinary literacy is through references to students’ ability to
perform verbal ac6ons based on thinking skills, such as explain, describe, report (coded as CV) or to students’
produc6ve use of language for showing learning (PL). References to different genre types (GG) were also
quite common. What occurred clearly less frequently were references to digital literacy elements (DD), to
subject-specific realia (TT) and to extrac6ng informa6on from visual elements (VV). Closer interpreta6on of
these are needed, but it may be that the rela6ve infrequency of these in the Na6onal Core Curriculum is due
to its role in providing general guidelines for all schools, the more detailed level to be specified in local
curricula at municipality level.
4/FI
GG
66
96
162
CV
primary
123
secondary 119
TOTAL
242
PL
99
103
202
DD
21
32
53
VV
6
0
6
TT
22
17
39
OTH
45
55
100
Figure 3. Coded instances of produc6ve disciplinary literacies according to educa6onal level
As regards the break-up of different categories based on the use of the coding tool in different subjects, the
following table (Figure 4) provides the ini6al picture that needs to be refined once the WG3 has gathered
more informa6on and shared experience of poten6al issues in coding across the contexts.
CV
PRIMARY
History
Environmental studies
Mother tongue and
literature
LOWER SECONDARY
Biology
Physics
Mother tongue and
literature
GG
PL
DD
VV
TT
OTH
TOTAL
28
61
4
3
9
29
1
7
0
6
0
21
3
11
45
138
34
59
61
13
0
1
31
199
36
42
0
4
7
31
6
15
0
0
10
7
14
12
73
111
41
92
65
11
0
0
29
238
Figure 4. Break-up of disciplinary literacy types across different subjects.
Even if preliminary, the figures show that at both primary and secondary levels, the curriculum of the subject
‘mother tongue and literature’ outnumbers other subjects as regards references to types of DL, which can be
expected given the nature of the subject. The difference to other subjects is par6cularly pronounced in the
case of references to genres or text types (GG). However, also other interes6ng features emerge. Firstly, in
lower secondary physics curriculum, the number of references to students’ ability to perform verbal ac6ons
based on thinking skills (CV) is at equal level to mother tongue and literature and in the category PL, i.e.
students’ produc6ve use of language for showing learning, physics curriculum has quite a number of
occurrences, no6ceably more than in biology. At the primary level, the curriculum for the Environmental
studies quite frequently refers to produc6ve disciplinary literacy, the total number is in fact the third largest
in the whole data set, aber the two ‘mother tongue and literature’ curriculum texts. References to the use of
subject-specific realia (TT) or to extrac6ng informa6on from visual elements (VV) as key elements of
produc6ve disciplinary literacy are rare across all the subjects. Environmental studies, biology and physics are
the three subjects with references to TT which is explained by the nature of the subjects: all the three
curricula bring up students working with various experiments designs, oben with measurement techniques.
The coding process involved some challenges that had to do, for example, with the fact that it was not always
straighuorward to differen6ate between different categories provided in the coding key. Agreement was
reached by shared discussion among coders and joint decisions but we are aware that in other country
teams decisions might have been taken differently - cross-country joint reflec6on is therefore needed as an
important step for refining the coding instrument. In the case of the Finnish curriculum, as men6oned earlier,
the focus on produc've disciplinary literacies also meant that several instances that clearly had to do with
disciplinary literacies, usually from the perspec6ve of the teacher familiarising students with subject-specific
ways of seeing the world, remained out of this analysis and would thus merit aYen6on in the further rounds
research ac6vi6es in WG3.
5/FI
Italy National Report
Team & Process
The five members of the Italian National Indications & Guidelines analysis team: Costa Francesca, Lopriore
Lucilla, Minardi Silvia, Morgana Valentina and Ting Teresa, are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. The Italian National Indications & Guidelines Analysis Team
Members &
Affiliation
Francesca Costa
Università
Cattolica del
Sacro Cuore
(Milan)
francesca.costa@
unicatt.it
Lucilla Lopriore*
Università degli
Studi Roma Tre
(Rome)
TESOL Italy
lucilla.lopriore@u
niroma3.it
Silvia Minardi
Liceo Statale
‘S.Quasimodo’,
Magenta (Milan)
silvia.minardi@g
mail.com
Valentina
Morgana
Università
Cattolica del
Sacro Cuore
(Milan)
valentina.morgan
a@unicatt.it
Teresa Ting
University of
Calabria (Rende)
teresa.ting@unica
l.it
Interest in COST and
Disciplinary Discourse
Language Specialist:
expertise in EMI & CLIL
implementation; formerly
primary school EFL and
CLIL teacher.
Language Specialist:
expertise & teachereducator(EFL/ELF/ItalianL2
/CLIL); coursebook &
materials developer;
formerly EFL up.sec.
school teacher; TESOL Italy
pres.(1996-98).
Language Specialist: upper
Secondary EFL Teacher;
expertise & teachereducator
(CLIL/EFL/Italian/CDF for
science education);
President National
Language Association
(LEND).
Language Specialist:
expertise in EFL, CLIL, TaskBased Language teaching
& technology; teachereducator in CLIL & EFL;
formerly lower secondary
EFL Teacher; DELTA.
STEM Content and EFL
Education across all levels;
EMI/CLIL teacher-training;
CLIL/EMI Materials
Development.
*ITALY National Indications & Guidelines Team Leader
1/IT
1.1 TEAM ORGANIZATION
The Italian (IT) National Indications & Guidelines1 analysis team (IT-Team) was coordinated by Lucilla Lopriore
who, in contact with the Italian Ministry of Education, identified the most recent (2010-2021) National
Indications & Guidelines(NI&G) documents. In addition, these contacts provided access to how various NI&G
documents were developed and information which explained some of subsequent analyses. Teamwork was
divided as follows:
• Lopriore: retrieval of all L1 documents (NI&G of each Italian school level/type/chosen subject);
• Costa and Morgana: analysis, translation & coding of primary and lower secondary Italian NI;
• Lopriore and Minardi: analysis, translation2 & coding of Italian upper secondary schools NI&G across
eight diverse school types, i.e., Lyceum (Artistic, Classical, Human Sciences, Linguistic, Musical,
Scientific), Technical and Vocational schools, and five disciplinary subjects, i.e., History, Italian (1st
language), English as a Foreign Language (EFL), Mathematics, Science.
• Ting: regular consultation with team members on NI&G analysis; codings double-checking.
2. THE ITALIAN NATIONAL SCHOOL SYSTEM
Figure 1 is a schematic illustration of how the Italian national school system is organized (Eurydice, 2023:
21).
Nursery; Pre-primary; Primary; Lower Secondary School; Upper Secondary Schools (Lyceum, Technical,
Vocationa&Training schools)
- Up to now, education is compulsory until the age of 16.
- Tertiary studies vary in duration since students may resit exams numerous times
Figure 1. The Italian education system with students’ age and duration of studies(Eurydice, 2023:21)3
1
Italian national curricular documents referring to Primary, Lower secondary schools and Lyceums in Upper secondary
schools, are defined “Indicazioni nazionali”= National Indications (NI) by the Italian Ministry of Education, while the
national curricular documents referring to Upper Secondary Technical and Vocational schools are defined “Linee
guida”= Guidelines (G). These terms are used in this document, while the terms ‘curriculum’ and ‘curricular’ are used
as general references.
2
NI&G documents and curricula translation was done with www.DeepL.com/Translator
European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2023. The structure of the European education systems 2023/2024: schematic
diagrams. Eurydice Facts and Figures. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, p.21.
3
2/IT
2.1. The Details
The Italian education and training system is organized according to the principles of subsidiarity and
autonomy of school institutions. The State, via the MIM (Italian Ministry of Education and Merit)4, has
exclusive legislative competence for the 'general rules on education' and for determining the essential levels
of services that must be guaranteed throughout the national territory. The State also defines the
fundamental principles that each Italian Region must respect when exercising their specific competences;
the Regions have specific competences in the field of education and vocational schools (art.117)5. All state
schools and state educational institutions can operate autonomously with regard to teaching, organization,
research, pilot projects & development.6
Compulsory education in Italy, up to now, lasts 10 years, from 6 to 16 years of age (Law 296, 2006), inclusive
of the first two years of Upper Secondary Schools, is organized as follows:
•
Age: 3 to 36 months: Pre-School, (Asilo Nido). Non-compulsory; both State as well as private preschools.
•
Age 3-5 years: Kindergarden (Asilo). Non-compulsory; both State as well as private kindergardens.
•
Age 6-14 years: “First Cycle Education”, (Primo Ciclo). Compulsory, with a total duration of eight
years, divided into two levels:
- Age 6-11: Primary School (Scuola Primaria);
- Age 11-13: Level-1 Lower Secondary School (Scuola secondaria di Primo Grado).
•
Age 14-18: Compulsory until the age of 16.
This “Second Cycle Education”, under the term “Scuola secondaria di secondo grado” (Upper
secondary school) is divided into three types of pathways (Lyceum, Technical, Vocational) of
different duration and outcomes:
-
Duration 5-years: Lyceums and Technical&Vocational Training Schools
Duration 3-4 years: Vocational&Training School (IFP: Istruzione e Formazione Professionale)
organized by Regional Education Authorities
-
As shown in Figure 1, students can complete the last two years of compulsory education through
either state-run or regional education and professional training schools. At the end of the
compulsory education period, students can conclude their studies, receiving a certification of the
skills acquired: This “School Leaving Certificate” (Diploma) is issued under Ministerial Decree 139,
20077.
Students continuing beyond compulsory education and completing Upper Secondary School, receive
their “High School Diploma” after sitting a a Final State Examination. With this “High School
Diploma”, students can access tertiary education courses.
-
•
4
Age 19+: Higher education is offered by Universities as well as by Institutions, such as Institutions of
Higher Education in Art, Music and Dance (AFAM), Technical Institutes of Higher Education (Istituti
Tecnologici Superiori, ITS Academy https://www.miur.gov.it/tematica-its ); ITSs are schools of
excellence with a high degree of technological specialisation that enable students to obtain the title
of higher technician. They are the expression of a strategy based on linking education, training and
https://www.miur.gov.it/
5
Italian Constitution art.117, https://www.senato.it/istituzione/la-costituzione/parte-ii/titolo-v/articolo-117
6
The text was adapted and translated from the Italian Ministry of Education & Merit (MIM) website
https://www.miur.gov.it/sistema-educativo-di-istruzione-e-formazione
7
In 2024, a Ministerial Decree on new models for key competences certification defined European level competences (multilingual
competence being the most relevant one) acquired by learners at the end of primary, lower secondary and compulsory education;
models differ in the analytical description of competences.
https://www.miur.gov.it/-/decreto-ministeriale-n-14-del-30-gennaio-2024
3/IT
labour policies with industrial policies. They work closely with Tertiary Technical High Schools (ITSIstituti Tecnici Superiori),
Additional Details:
•
CLIL was introduced by law into the Italian secondary school in 2010. Disciplinary subjects are taught
in a foreign language by content teachers. The CLIL foreign language most often used is English, but
also French, Spanish and German are offered8. In 2012, the Ministry of Education offered, through
Universities, CLIL Teacher-Education courses (20 ECTS) for upper secondary content CLIL teachers
that were run between 2013 and 2019. More recently (DM 1511, 2022), the Ministry of Education
defined the profile of CLIL primary teachers and offered a new organization of the 20 ECTS University
run CLIL Teacher Education courses for pre-primary, primary, lower and upper secondary school
teachers defining a new CLIL teacher profile.
•
Foreign languages: in the Italian school system, English is compulsory from primary to lower
secondary level, where a second language (French, German, or Spanish) is mandatory and also taught
in many cases9, at upper secondary level. At upper secondary school, besides the previously
mentioned languages, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese or Russian are also introduced as an option in some
school types.
•
Non-Italian school population: In 2023, there were 967,394 students with non-Italian citizenship.
11.3% of the total number of students enrolled in schools in Italy (8.5 million), 66% were born in Italy,
while there is a much lower percentage of non-Italian students with Italian citizenship10. The first four
countries of origin of non-Italian students are: Romania (17.8%), Albania (13.4%), Morocco (12.6%)
and China (5.8%)11. The amount of non-Italian students requires support (Italian as L2 courses)
• Private schools: In 2021 there were 2,238 private parochial schools for secondary education in Italy,
of which 640 catered to Level-1 Secondary Education (age 11-13) and 1,598 catering to 14-19 year
old students in Lyceum or Technical or Vocational &Training Schools. These private schools enrolled
a total of 181,840 students, 5% of the total number of secondary school students; most private
schools also receive financial support from the State and must therefore offer curricular indications
which are coherent with those of state schools.
9
English, even if not compulsory, is the most taught foreign language at upper secondary schools.
https://www.minori.gov.it/it/notizia/rapporto-ismu-sulle-migrazioni-2023-i-dati-sugli-alunni-stranieri
10
11
Figures of learners’ ‘school delay’ in the years 2021/2022 concern 8,1% of Italian students and 25,4% of ‘non-Italian citizens’,
these figures highlight their specific learning needs in terms of study skills, of the language of schooling, and of their still partial
integration in the Italian school system.
4/IT
3. This Survey
In Italy, curricular National Indications and Guidelines (NI&G), written by teams of experts appointed by the
Ministry of Education, are issued by the Italian Ministry of Education, and addressed to schools in order to
be implemented, and are specific for different school pathways from primary to upper secondary schools.
These NI&G are usually age-specific and/or specific for each type of school (see Section 2.1) and are organized
into two sections, an Introduction followed by different Subject-Specific Sections. The Introduction specifies
general educational objectives, defines outcomes, defines students’ profiles and approaches for that
particular age-group and school-type, while the Subject-Specific Sections outline subject-specific outcomes.
With each school reform, the Ministry of Education publishes new guidelines, including pedagogical
innovations. Academic experts in the field, teachers’professional associations as well as school principals may
often be consulted by the Ministry of Education as for the NI&G.
For this Survey, we analyzed the most recent NI&G documents which were published by the Italian
Ministry of Education for primary, lower and upper secondary schools, between 2010 and 2019. After
collecting these documents, the Team identified sections addressing the subjects of interest to be translated
into English before proceding to coding the presence of productive disciplinary literacies, as it was done for
History, Mathematics, and Science, but also for those more directly related to language use, as English as a
foreign language, and Italian (1st language, mother tongue), to investigate how and if productive disciplinary
literacies (DLs) are addressed in content as well as in first and foreign language subjects.
Figure 3A illustrates which Italian curricular documents were selected and translated while Figure 3B
illustrates which documents were surveyed for mentions of productive disciplinary literacies.
Original L1 Documents can be found in (LINK TO FOLDER). The English versions of these documents can
be found in (LINK TO FOLDER) and the surveyed documents can be found in (LINK TO FOLDER).
Figure 3A. Italian N.G.
documents which were
translated into English.
Figure 3B. Curricular
documents which were
surveyed for mentions
of productive
disciplinary literacies.
5/IT
The Team surveyed the National Indications of pre-primary, primary, lower and upper secondary schools,
specifically the 2010 National Indications published for Classical, Scientific and Art Lyceums, and the
Guidelines for Technical and Vocational & Training upper secondary schools (Figure 3B). It should be noted
that, the decade between 2010 and 2019 represents a moment of rapid change in societal conditions in Italy,
reflecting changes in educational needs and thus a call for innovations at all levels of schooling. The Team
surveyed the National Indications and Guidelines NI&G for the subjects specified in the project MoU and by
WG3 (see Section 2.1), i.e. History, Mathematics, and Science, L1 language (Italian) and the first foreign
language, i.e. English.
NI&G are most significantly modified with each reform, thus “most innovative and updated”, so all
the sections were surveyed for “mentions of productive disciplinary literacies”. This allowed us to appreciate
whether, how and how much NI&G addressed the need to provide explicit instruction for building students’
disciplinary literacies and answer the question: “Do demands of disciplinary literacies change from primary
to lower secondary to upper secondary in the NI&G?” In addition, the General section of the two most
popular Lyceums, Classical and Scientific, and the Technical and Vocational Upper Secondary Schools, were
also surveyed. This allowed us to ask the question, “Do demands of disciplinary literacies differ as a function
of the type of schooling students pursue?” Together, both questions allow us to trace elements of continuity
in disciplinary literacies development for each subject and across subjects along the whole educational path.
It should be noted that the inclusion of Technical and Vocational High Schools was especially relevant,
because their outcomes are related to professional profiles, and Vocational schools were recently updated
(2019)12 representing an innovative trend in terms of their connection to the European Vocational Education
and Training (VET) system and to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF)13, tools to make national
qualifications easier to understand and more comparable in Europe.
Recent reforms of Vocational schools (2019) and their National Guidelines represented an innovative
trend in terms of their exit professional profiles and connection to the Key competences for lifelong
learning14. All key competences are considered equally important and aspects essential to one domain will
support competence development in another. For example, skills such as critical thinking, problem solving,
team work, communication, creativity, negotiation, analytical and intercultural skills are embedded
throughout the key competences, and these are connected to the models of exit certifications in schools15.
These indications and guidelines were also founded on competence-based Learning Units which go
beyond traditional teaching, centred on learning experiences, privileging laboratories, personal research,
group activities, extracurricular experiences, aimed at a “holistic formation” of the person, through the
development of transversal and disciplinary competences. To achieve this, educational paths in vocational
schools use an “Interdisciplinary Didactic Planning Table” which attends to students’ development along four
axes: Language Axis, Historical-Social Axis, Mathematical Axis which is common for all educational paths;
Scientific-Technological-Professional Axis which is specific for each student’s chosen professional path
(Appendix A). As will be discussed in more detail below, we mention this Planning Table because it became
apparent to us during the survey, that it would take so little effort to add a row below row 12 which is labelled
“12 - Use the concepts and fundamental tools of the cultural axes to understand reality and operate in
applied fields”, which states “13 – Use age-appropriate academic and discipline-specific discourse to
12
Both schools respond to requirements in terms of cultural and professional preparation. The “New Vocational schools” Guidelines
were linked to Law 107, 13/07/2015, called “The Good School”, meant to redefine the Italian school vocational curricular guidelines.
https://archivio.pubblica.istruzione.it/varie/superiori/nuova_istruzione_tecnica_e_professionale.pdf
13
The EQF seeks to support cross-border mobility of learners and workers, promote lifelong learning and professional development
across Europe.
14
European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Key competences for lifelong learning,
Publications Office, 2019, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/569540 The eight key competences are: Literacy competence;
Multilingual competence; Mathematical competence and competence in science,technology and engineering; Digital competence;
Personal, social and learning to learn competence; Citizenship competence; Entrepreneurship competence; Cultural awareness and
expression competence.
15
Competence certification model (DM14, 30.01.2024) https://www.miur.gov.it/-/decreto-ministeriale-n-14-del-30gennaio-2024
6/IT
communicate one’s understanding of discipline-specific notions related to the reality and operation in
applied fields”.
4. Survey results: Data, analysis, findings & reflections
4.1 Word count and results of preliminary analysis
Figure 5 summarizes the word count the corpus of respective sections of the Italian IN&G which the team
surveyed.
English version
Primary
Lower Secondary16
NI-Overall
Mathematics
950 w.
990 w.
pp.25-27
Science
History
Italian L1
English L2
776 w.
8218 w.
723 w.
pp.29-31
Upper Secondary
Lyceums: Artistic, Classical, Human Sciences, Linguistic, Musical, Scientific. New Technical (Economic); New Vocational(Services)
Lyceums (2010)
NI-Overall
(Type: Scientific17)
8271 w.
Mathematics
Science
History
Italian L1
English L2
W. Total
pp.337-341
pp.344pp.332-335
pp.353-355
pp.330-332
Subjects
2508 w.
347
2155 w.
1975 w.
2304 w.
11795 w.
2853 w.
Intro: 1170 w.
1st 2ys: 584 w.
2nd2ys: 389 w.
5th yr.: 365w.
New Technical18
(Type:Economic19)
(2010/201820)
G-Overall
36,137 w.
New Vocational (Service sector21)
(DM2017-2018/19)
G-Overall
Annex A
1660 w.22
pp.12-14
Intro:
2012w.
1st 2ys:
281w
2nd
2ys:323w.
5th yr.:
237w.
pp.45-46
1772 w.
Intro: 82w.
1st 2yrs.:189W.
Knowledge
(skills etc.):
1501 w
Intro: 1388 w.
1st 2ys: 120w.
3rd4thyr:238w.
5thyr: 409w.
Intro: 1370w.
1st 2ys: 337w.
2nd 2ys+5th yr:
268w.
Intro: 998 w.
Total L/C: 662
1st2ys:211,L/C
2nd2ys:268L/C
5th yr:165 L/C
pp.43-44
772 w.
Intro: 194 w.
including 5 yrs
aims;
1st2yrs:372w.;
Knowledge
127w.+Skills
77s.=204 w.
pp.44-45
591 w.
Intro: 154 w.
1st 2yrs
Language &
Literature+Kn
owledge
description
(skills etc.)
437 w.
pp.45-46
807 w.
1st 2 yrs325w.
Language&Lit
erature321 w.
(K146w+S175
w)
pp.41-42
670w.
Intro: 68 w.
1st 2yrs
526 w.
B1 CEFR/B2 5th
yr.
Intro: 257 w.
Knowledge&
Skills: 269 w.
p.47-48
623 w.
B2 CEFR
G. Intro: 80w.
1st2yrs: 522
247w+
(K123+S150)
pp.48-49
992 w.
Gen. Intro.
154w.
1st2yrs 861W.:
(K129+S140)
3805 w.
2422w.
Figure 5. Word count of the Italian National Indications and Guidelines (NI&G)
16
D.M. n. 254 (16/11/2012, G.U. 30, 5 /02/ 2013) hubmiur.pubblica.istruzione.it/web/istruzione/prot7734_12. The subjects: History,
L1 and L2 , at primary and lower secondary schools, were not subject to specific analysis in this report.
17
The choice of reporting here the data of this type of Lyceum is due to the specificity of the curricular indications mostly based
upon scientific subjects
18
The New Technical Guidelines are composed by: a general introduction to contents for all the 5 years; this is followed by a
detailed section for the first 2 years with a detailed description of what should be enhanced by the teacher to develop learners’
competences; the last section is distinguished into 2 parts: Knowledge & Skills concerning each specific subject.
19
The choice of the Economic type of New Technical schools was based upon the relevance of the subjects and of the strong
interdisciplinary focus provided.
20
First designed in 2010, Technical schools were later (2017/19) further refined in terms of final competences achievement
21
The choice of the Services sector of the New Vocational schools was based upon the specificity of the subjects and skills promoting
interaction and interdisciplinary links.
22
Intermediate learning outcomes of the exit profile of vocational education pathways for general area activities and teaching.
7/IT
An important part of all Italian NI&G documents is the first part that introduces the main aims of a specific
type or level of school, provides a very general objective for each subject and describes the students’ profile
and the expected learning outcomes. It specifies the disciplinary declination of the educational, cultural and
professional profile a student is expected to achieve.
As shown in Figure 5, all NI&G surveyed had a longer introductory section with details of the main
notions of each subject matter. Indeed, it represents a guideline and framework to help schools design their
Educational Offer, help teachers build their teaching plans and defines students’ exit profiles, the learning
objectives and level of competences which are expected at the end of their studies within that particular
school (MIUR, 2010:5). The Team thus surveyed the Sections of the NI&G at all three levels of schooling
(primary, lower secondary and at upper secondary level) six types of Lyceums (Artistic, Classical, Human
Sciences, Linguistic, Musical, Scientific), one type of Technical High School (Economic) and one type of
Vocational & Training School (Social Services).
4.2. Coded instances of DLs in National Indications and Guidelines
UPPER SECONDARY
CV
GG
PL
DD
VV
TT
OTH
Lyceums: Artistic; Musical;
Comma
Genre Producti Digital
Visual
SubjectOther
Scientific;
nd
ve use
literacy element specific
*Classical, Linguistic, Human
verbs
of
s
realia
23
Science
languag
Technical Schools
e
Mathematics
1
5
5
10
5
3
22
Artistic Lyceum
Mathematics
5
19
5
12
3
4
8
Scientific Lyceum
Mathematics
2
8
12
6
3
11
Musical Lyceum
Mathematics
2
8
12
6
3
11
Classical, Ling., Hum. Science
Lyceums
Mathematics
13
4
2
6
3
2
Technical schools
Science
14
1
4
10
Artistic Lyceum
Science
20
4
2
1
5
15
Scientific Lyceum
Science
13
2
3
10
Musical Lyceum
Science
17
1
2
1
5
13
Classic., Ling., Hum. Science
Lyceums
Science (Biology)
16
1
1
6
Technical schools
Fig.6 - Instances of DLs in Mathematics and Science in upper secondary Lyceums & Technical schools
23
Guidelines for Classical. Linguistic and Human Sciences schools for Mathematics and Science are the same.
8/IT
UPPER SECONDARY
CV
GG
PL
DD
VV
TT
OTH
LYCEUMS (Scientific.)
Command
Genre
Productive Digital
Visual
SubjectOther
- TECHNICAL Schools
verbs
use of
literacy elements specific
- VOCATIONAL
language
realia
Schools
Italian L1
4
3
7
1
5
(Scientific.) 1975 w.
Italian L1
3
2
4
3
2
4
New Technical schools
1182 w.
Italian L1
3
1
6
1
2
New Vocational
schools 1774 w.
English L2
13
2
8
2
1
2
3
(Scientific) Intro: 998w,
2304 w.
English L2
5
1
7
1
7
New Technical schools
1790 w.
English L2
3
2
8
1
2
1
New Vocational
schools 1392 w.
History
8
18
1
2
5
7
(Scientific) 2155 w.
History
14
2
2
1
5
New Technical schools
899 w.
History
13
2
2
2
1
2
New Vocational
schools. 2007 w.
Fig.7- “Instances” of DLs in History, Italian L1, English L2 in upper secondary Lyceums, New Technical and
New Vocational Schools. The total word count was calculated summing the subject introduction, and
excerpts from the first and second two years and fifth year descriptions.
The word count associated with the number of DLs instances in each subject guidelines is meant to help the
reader get an overall impression of how much National Indications and Guidelines are representative of DLs.
5. Reflections & Comments
5.1 Comments and reflections on the Primary and Middle School National Indications24
The analysis of the Italian National Indications for primary and lower secondary schools was carried out on
Mathematics and Science. In Mathematics, the National Indications emphasize the description of key goals.
For primary schools, the NI highlight the use of real-world objects (realia) as an effective teaching method
and include many references to visuals. Verbal actions are also quite frequent, particularly with reference to
describing thinking skills and solving mathematical problems.
24
From the Italian National Indications (Francesca Costa and Valentina Morgana)
9/IT
Excerpt 1 “Gradually, stimulated by the teacher's guidance and by discussion with peers, the pupil will learn
to tackle problem situations with confidence and determination, representing them in different ways (VV),
conducting the appropriate explorations, taking the necessary time to precisely identify what is known and
what is to be found, conjecturing solutions and results, and identifying possible solution strategies (CV).”
In Science, the indications emphasize key concepts like identifying and describing. NI frequently mention
hands-on experiences and experiments but make fewer references to thinking skills related to language
actions. This focus on practical experiences aims to enhance students' understanding of scientific concepts.
Excerpt 2 “In the course of each primary school year, therefore, each pupil must be involved in various
practical experiences.”
5.2.1 Comments and reflections on the Science and Mathematics National Indications and Guidelines25
SCIENCE
We have analyzed the Science indications and guidelines for both Lyceums and New Technical Schools in
Italy. For Italian Lyceums, the indications are identical across Classical Lyceum, Linguistic Lyceum, and Human
Science Lyceum. However, different indications exist for Scientific Lyceum, Artistic Lyceum, and Musical
Lyceum. Our analysis covered the entire course of study for Lyceums, which spans ages 14 to 19. In the
Lyceums the indications for science refer to Earth Science, Biology and Chemistry.
The survey analysed a total of 4,619 words for Lyceums and 499 words for Technical Schools.
The difference is due to the fact that for Technical Schools, the Italian team decided to focus the analysis on
the first two years of the Economic and Technological Technical Schools, specifically on the biology and Earth
science guidelines. This decision was necessary due to the large number of new technical school types within
the Italian education system and the various subjects that include a science pathway.
The most frequently occurring elements within the Science guidelines are command verbs (CVs),
although there were notable differences between indications for lyceums and technical schools regarding
these verbs. In the Guidelines for Technical Schools, within a corpus of 499 words in the sections surveyed,
there were only 16 instances of CVs and they lacked diversity, with “describe,” “analyse,” and “recognize and
identify” being the most common.
Conversely, the indications for the lyceums exhibit a broader range of CVs. Among these, “categorize”
is the most frequently used, and “describe” also appears prominently. The verb “explain” is particularly
frequent in the Scientific Lyceum guidelines compared to the others. Interestingly, command verbs related
to the Cognitive Discourse Function “evaluate” appear in three of the lyceums analyses. The exception is the
Artistic Lyceum, where such verbs are absent.
Lyceums
In the lyceums all National Indications start with a paragraph called “General Guidelines and Competencies”
in which emphasis is given to the fact that all the disciplines have their own specific notions to be learnt and
specific methods of investigation. What they have in common is a “strategy of inquiry” based on observation
and experimentation. All the disciplines included in the science indications use observations and make
experiments to teach and learn science. The main focus seems to be on “doing science”.
Excerpt 1 – Scientific Lyceum (p. 344)
Of fundamental importance in this course is the experimental dimension (OTH), a constitutive
dimension of scientific disciplines and as such, always to be kept in mind. The laboratory is one of the
most significant moments in which it is expressed, as a privileged circumstance of "doing science"
through the organization and execution of experimental activities (TT), which can however also
usefully take place in the classroom or on the field. This dimension remains an indispensable aspect
of science education and a guide for the whole educational path, even when real laboratory activities
25
From the Italian National Indications (Silvia Minardi)
10/IT
are not possible, e.g. through the presentation, discussion and processing (PL) of experimental data
(TT), the use of films (VV), simulations, models and virtual experiments (GG), the presentation (PL)
- also through original excerpts (GG) written by scientists (OTH) - of major experiments in the
development of scientific knowledge.
Indeed, the experiment is an indispensable part of science education and should therefore be
promoted during all the years of study and in all subject areas, because it educates the student to ask
questions (CV), collect data (OTH) and interpret (CV) them, gradually acquiring the attitudes typical
of scientific inquiry.
In terms of disciplinary literacies
- There are some language activities mentioned which imply both a receptive and productive use of
language: presentation – discussion – processing (all classified as PL) as well as reading (which we
classified as OTH) original excerpts written by scientists;
- Experiments are seen as a way to enable learners to ask questions (CV), collect data (OTH) and
interpret (CV) them: all these activities imply using and producing language.
After the “General guidelines and competences” the text is divided into three parts: a) first two years, b)
second two years, c) fifth and last year. It is often emphasized that learning science goes through a cycle
which is not linear but recursive. There seems to be a step-by-step approach which suggests using description
(CV) in the first two years and gradually introducing the learner to “new ways of interpretation” and to the
“explanation” (CV) of data or phenomena in the second two years.
In the first two years an element which seems to indicate a progression towards disciplinary literacies
is the combination of observation, which has been classified as OTH (other), and description, which we coded
as CV26. Once learners have observed phenomena, they are required to describe what they have noticed in
the observation process.
Interestingly for the first two years, Chemistry is the subject with a greater emphasis on DL:
Excerpt 2 – Artistic Lyceum (p. 29)
The Chemistry course contents include the observation (OTH) and description (CV) of phenomena
and simple reactions (their recognition (OTH) and representation (OTH)) with reference to
examples taken from everyday life; the states of aggregation of matter and their transformations;
the classification (CV) of matter (homogeneous and heterogeneous mixtures, simple and compound
substances) and their operational definitions (CV); the fundamental laws and Dalton's atomic
model; the chemical formula and its meaning; the classification (CV) of elements according to
Mendeleev.
Technical Schools
The text starts with a page of general objectives in which DLs are sparsely present.
Excerpt 3 – Technical Schools (page 49)
The basic skills expected at the end of compulsory education […]:
- observe (OTH), describe (CV) and analyze (CV) phenomena belonging to natural and artificial
reality and recognize (CV) the concepts of system and complexity in various forms.
- qualitatively and quantitatively analyze (CV) phenomena related to energy transformations based
on experience.
- be aware of the potentials and limitations of technologies in the cultural and social contexts in
which they are applied.
[…]
26
In the category CV (command verbs) I focused on Cognitive Discourse Functions (Dalton-Puffer, 2013) not only those realized
through performative verbs, but also nominalisations, as “description”, “classifications” and others.
11/IT
The teacher enhances, in the student's career, the contribution of all disciplines, especially the
experimental ones, with their specific languages (OTH), in order to investigate (OTH) topics that
are relevant to students' cultural and civic growth, such as, by way of example, issues related to
health education, safety and environmental education.
The presence of DLs can only be inferred when the text mentions the role of “investigation” and
“observation” in teaching and learning science: in order to investigate topics learners need literacies which
may be general as well as specific to each discipline. The “specific languages” of experimental disciplines may
lend to various interpretations: if intended in a restricted way it only refers to vocabulary. Buf if it were
intended in a broader sense it could also include the use of language dimensions such as texts and genre
types or language modes of communication and activities which are typical of learning science.
The NI are organised with two columns on each page, in the left-hand column (labelled as
“knowledge”) there is a list of factual knowledge to be taught while in the right-hand column (labelled as
“skills”) the indications specify what the learner is expected to be able to do with those contents. In our
analysis we focused on the right-hand column:
Excerpt 4 – Technical schools
Skills
Identify the consequences of Earth's rotational and revolutionary motions on the planet.
Analyze the current state and changes on the planet also with reference to the exploitation
of the Earth's resources.
Recognize the cell as the basic functional unit of construction of every living thing.
Compare the structures common to all eukaryotic cells, distinguishing between animal and
plant cells.
Highlight (OTH) the common characteristics of organisms and the parameters most
frequently used to classify organisms.
Reconstruct the evolutionary history of humankind by emphasizing the complexity of the
hominid phylogenetic tree.
Describe the human body, and analyze the interconnections between systems and organs.
Describe the mechanism of DNA duplication and protein synthesis.
Describe the role of organisms, which is fundamental to the balance of natural
environments and the rebalancing of those degraded by pollution.
From such a way of organizing the guidelines we can see how contents (topics) listed on the left are used in
some kinds of actions which imply the use of DL. There are 10 occurrences of CVs, with “describe”
occurring three times and “analyse” twice. What is missing in the list are the kinds of texts or genres which
learners are expected to produce.
MATHEMATICS
We have analyzed the Mathematics NI&G for both Lyceums and New Technical Schools in Italy. For Italian
Lyceums, the indications are identical across Classical Lyceum, Linguistic Lyceum, Musical Lyceum, and
Human Science Lyceum. However, different indications exist for Scientific Lyceum and Artistic Lyceum. Our
analysis covered the entire course of study for Lyceums, which spans ages 14 to 19. The survey analysed a
total of 7,540 words for Lyceums and 962 words for Technical Schools
The difference is due to the fact that for Technical Schools, the Italian team decided to focus the analysis on
the first two years of the Economic and Technological Technical Schools. This decision was necessary due to
the large number of new technical school types within the Italian education system. There are notable
differences between the NI&G for Mathematics in Technical Schools and Lyceums. In general, what they have
in common is great emphasis on contents and on students’ ability to understand notions, concepts, and
more. However, there is very little mention of how students will learn to use the language of mathematics
to demonstrate their understanding.
12/IT
Lyceums
The coding process had to make some choices after recognising that mathematics has a language of its own
which is built upon general language. The point which is generally missing in the indications is the fact
learners should be taught how to language their thoughts and their learning.
In the indications for lyceums, the most frequently occurring elements are genres (GG), digital literacies (DD),
and productive use of language (PL). Regarding PL (productive use of language), two cases can be used to
exemplify the role of language in math teaching and learning.
Excerpt 5 – Lyceums
construction (PL) and analysis (CV) of simple mathematical models of classes of phenomena
In the case of mathematics, we considered this a form of production which shows discipline-specific
comprehension and interpreted language as any form of “mathematical language”, which would, in this case,
be a “mathematical model”.
Excerpt 6 – Lyceums
demonstration (PL) of the irrationality of Ö2 and other numbers will be an important opportunity for
conceptual deepening.
This is particularly interesting because it explicitly states that the process of demonstration, which requires
production, contributes to “conceptual deepening”, i.e. deeper learning. This refers to some form of
Disciplinary Literacy, but these aspects should be made more explicit. How language can be used by learners
to “demonstrate” is a key component of DL when learning mathematics.
The role of digital literacies is very important in the mathematics indications for lyceums with a strong
emphasis on students’ ability to analyze and represent data using the most appropriate computer tools. For
instance, the national indications for Scientific Lyceums include a specific section on “Elements of Computer
Science,” stating that students should become familiar with computer tools for representing and
manipulating mathematical objects and explore ways to represent elementary textual and multimedia data.
Here, digital literacies encompass the ability to use computer tools for geometric representations and
calculations, as well as the representation of mathematical objects through texts or multimedia data.
Interestingly, while the curricular indications emphasize encouraging the use of computer tools, they also
stress the importance of critically introducing these tools in Mathematics.
Regarding genres (GG) in Mathematics, there is a notable emphasis on:
a. Procedures unique to mathematical reasoning, such as definitions, demonstrations, generalizations,
axiomatizations, and formalizations, which we coded as Genres (GG).
b. Mathematical models to represent phenomena, including geometric representations. The various
methods of representing a geometrical fact are referred to as “registers of representation”
(numerical, graphic, functional), borrowing terminology from linguistics.
In the indications for Artistic Lyceum, digital literacy elements (DD) are the most frequently emphasized.
Computer tools are utilized for describing phenomena, performing calculations, and creating geometric
representations. Interestingly, the indications advocate for the combined use of computer and traditional
tools. They emphasize that students should not only become proficient with these tools but also use them in
a critical and thoughtful manner.
In other types of lyceums, elements of productive use of language (PL) and genres (GG) frequently overlap
as in excerpt 7.
Excerpt 7 – Lyceums
- the concept of a mathematical model (GG) and a clear idea of the difference between the
view of mathematization (GG) characteristic of classical physics (unambiguous correspondence
between mathematics and nature) and that of modeling (possibility of representing the same class
of phenomena through different approaches) (GG);
- construction (PL) and analysis (CV) of simple mathematical models of classes of
phenomena (GG), including using computer tools (DD) for description (CV) and calculation;
13/IT
Language plays a crucial role in constructing simple mathematical models, representing problems, and
demonstrating general results. Mathematics integrates various genres and mediates between different
“registers,” allowing students to describe problems using equations or other tools which belong to the
language of mathematics. For example, students are expected to transition smoothly between different
registers of representation—numerical, graphical, and functional (GG)—while using computer tools for data
representation (DD). It should be noted that:
•
•
The most common activities coded as PL are “representing” and “modelling.”
Effectively choosing the appropriate tools to represent data or mathematical phenomena also
requires genre awareness.
Technical schools
In Technical Schools, the most frequently occurring elements are command verbs (CVs) and visual elements
(VVs). The distribution of command verbs is fairly uniform, with “identifying” and “analysing” being the most
common. Regarding visual elements, both receptive and active skills are emphasized. Students are expected
to both interpret “graphic representations” of mathematical concepts, such as functions, and to express
these concepts through “graphic forms.”
In the text, there is a short introduction with the expected outcomes for the 5 years of schooling:
Excerpt 8 – Technical schools
master the formal language (OTH) and demonstrative procedures (GG) of mathematics; possess
the mathematical, statistical, and calculus of probability tools (TT) necessary for understanding
scientific disciplines and for being able to operate in the field of applied sciences; situate
mathematical and scientific thought in the major themes of the development of the history of ideas,
culture, scientific discoveries, and technological inventions.
It is interesting to note that mastering the formal language of mathematics is the first outcome mentioned
in the list of key expected outcomes. The procedures and tools characteristic of the discipline inherently rely
on the use of language. However, the Guidelines currently lack a focus on how Disciplinary Literacies
contribute to deeper understanding, practical application in the field of applied sciences, and other related
competencies.
As regards the guidelines for the first two years here is the list of “basic skills expected at the end of
compulsory education”:
Excerpt 9 – Technical schools
the basic skills expected at the end of the compulsory education requirement, listed below
- using the techniques and procedures (GG) of arithmetic and algebraic calculation, representing
them also in graphic form (VV)
- comparing and analyzing (CV) geometric figures, identifying (CV) invariants and relationships
- identifying (CV) appropriate strategies for problem solving
- analyzing (CV) data and interpreting (CV) them developing deductions (CV) and reasoning about
them also with the help of graphic representations (VV),
- consciously using computational tools (TT) and the potential offered by specific computer
applications (DD).
The most important elements refer to CVs, with “identifying” being used twice. As it is used here, it does not
refer to basic or lower thinking skills, as learners are here expected to identify “invariants and relationships”
as well as “appropriate strategies” in the solution of math problems. In the former, we are in front of a
compare-and-contrast CV (belonging to a “categorise” CDF element). In the latter, the ability to identify the
correct strategy for solving a problem implies the ability to read and understand a word problem with all its
features and complexities. The CV “analyse” is also used twice, referring to both geometric figures and data,
which require analysing, interpreting and – in the case of “data” – making deductions.
After this introduction, “skills” are listed with a differentiation between (a) arithmetic and algebra;
(b) geometry; (c) relations and functions. In the three parts, the verb “use” is often employed. We have coded
14/IT
it as a CV when it is associated with something which implies a linguistic dimension, even though this is not
explicitly mentioned.
Excerpt 10 – Technical schools
Arithmetic and Algebra
Use (CV) the procedures (GG) of arithmetic to calculate arithmetic expressions and solve problems;
[…]
Use (CV) the concept of approximation correctly.
Geometry
Perform elementary geometric constructions using a ruler and compass (TT) and/or computer tools
(DD).
Know and use measurements of geometric quantities: perimeter, area and volume of major
geometric figures of the plane and space. […]
Solve problems of the plane and space using properties of geometric figures or properties of
appropriate isometries
Using procedures and concepts as in the arithmetic and algebra guidelines implies using language to read,
understand, apply what has been learned. This is not the case when learners are asked to use a ruler and
compass or computer tools as in the geometry guidelines.
5.2. Comments and reflections on Italian L1, History, English L2 National Indications & Guidelines 27
Analyses were carried out on NI&G for History, Italian (L1), English (foreign language) from three types of
Lyceums (Classical, Scientific and Linguistic) and both New Technical and New Vocational High Schools. Not
surprisingly, on a general level, the main educational aims differed between Lyceums and the more
professionally oriented High Schools. Since the Technical and Vocational Schools had recently undergone
reform and innovation, an interesting observation was that these guidelines followed a more linear
organization with suggestions for each subject presented through easy-to-follow prose that facilitated our
analyses and the identification of instances of disciplinary literacies. In fact, since these curricular documents
provided such well-structured guidelines regarding teaching approaches, they could be adapted for the
purpose of teacher education which aims to provide cross-disciplinary perspectives that would highlight the
role of cognitive discourse functions and language for the learning of content.
5.2.1 The L1-Italian-Language Indications
All upper secondary level curricular documents for Italian Language Education were surveyed for productive
disciplinary literacies, based on the logic that “students’ ability to use L1 effectively to communicate in ageappropriate academic ways is essential for future professional success” and should therefore be an explicit
objective of L1-language education. With all Language indications, be they for L1-Native Language (Italian)
or English as a Foreign Language, it was necessary to keep the distinction between Language and Literature
as used in the National Indications. In the Italian language indications, specific sections drew attention to
“competence in the Italian language”, providing numerous descriptions of language components which
students should learn. Since these were L1-language curricular indications, and not disciplinary-subject ones,
rather than analyzing for productive disciplinary discourse, we sought mentions of productive academic
discourse. In fact, Table 2 illustrates a segment within the first 150 words of the 1370 word English
translation of the L1-Italian-Language indications which clearly state that, at the end of their studies, students
should be able to use Italian to express themselves “with clarity and propriety”, adapting to the circumstance
at hand (GG) to achieve various productive communincative objectives (PL, CV). While this excerpt already
makes explicit reference to students’ ability to use language effectively, the modified excerpt (Table 2(B))
illustrates how, with the addition of only four words, the indications could make even more explicit the need
to build students’ productive language skills.
27
From the Italian National Indications and Guidelines for Italian L1, English L2, History in Lyceums, Vocational and Technical
schools (Lucilla Lopriore)
15/IT
Table 2. An excerpt from the document surveyed in Table 1, illustrating instances of the productive DL as
they appear within the document (A); How the indications could be modified to prompt for more explicit
attention towards Productive-DLs (B).
(A) Excerpt
At the end of the Lyceum the student masters the Italian language: he/she is able to express him/herself, both orally
and in writing, with clarity and propriety, varying - according to the different contexts and purposes (GG)- the personal
use of the language; to perform fundamental operations, such as summarising and paraphrasing a given text (PL),
organising and motivating an argument (CV); to illustrate and interpret (PL) in essential terms a historical, cultural,
scientific phenomenon. (74 words)
(B) Modified Excerpt
By the end of the Lyceum, students should be able to masterfully use the Italian language to express him/herself,
both orally and in writing, with clarity and propriety, varying in registers which respond to different contexts and
communicative purposes. Such communicative competence must therefore range from language for fundamental
everyday operations, summarising and paraphrasing texts, organising and motivating arguments, to the ability to use
language for academic purposes such as explaining ones interpretation of historical, cultural, scientific phenomenon.
(78 words)
Finally, it should be noted that, although the excerpt seems to be characterized by a dense distribution of
Productive-DLs, this was rather unusual. In fact, these 74 words are followed by a paragraph of 119 words
containing no instances of Productive-DLs. As shown in Figures 6 and 7, since instances mentioning
Productive-DL were few and far between, it is important that all references to students’ command over
language should raise readers’ awareness to the fact that students’ productive academic/disciplinary
literacies requires systematic and explicit instruction.
Reflection: The main point that clearly emerges is the missed opportunity for the L1-Italian-Language
indications to raise teachers’ awareness to the need to explicitly develop learners’ language awareness and
productive language skills while using ‘languaging’ activities as examples of activity types that would suit even
first language approaches. The absence of references to “explicit language instruction” and the need to
“explicitly build students’ language production skills” explains the difficulties encountered when coding for
productive disciplinary/academic literacies in these curricular documents.
In fact, the two excerpts below – used in the initial part of the Italian indications - illustrate how “instruction
on language” is glossed over, as also mentions of “vocabulary”.
Excerpt: Italian language teaching requires effective and planned collaboration with the other
disciplines.(Scientific Lyceums, introduction to Italian, p.335-38)
Excerpt: This course will use the opportunities offered by all the disciplines with their specific languages
to facilitate vocabulary enrichment and develop the ability to interact with different types of texts,
including scientific texts.
Not only do the NI&G not suggest how such “collaboration with other disciplines” could be “planned
effectively”, this very valid suggestion is also stated without any reference to the rationale behind using
complex disciplinary concepts to build more complex academic language skills, nor do the NI&G mention the
types of instructional tasks and authentic materials which might sustain such interdisciplinary collaborations.
Likewise the reference to “vocabulary enrichment” is taken no further than the ‘ability to interact’ which is
itself only presented as “interaction with written texts”. This not only ignores the power of oracy for learning,
it also ignores the fact that productive language skills do not automatically result from receptive language
skills.
By contrast, the L1-Italian-Language Guidelines of the New Vocational Schools approached “language”
more explicitly. As shown in the Excerpt below, the writers of these guidelines made explicit not only the
importance of language as a tool for effective learning but also as a tool for formulating and communicating
knowledge.
Excerpt:
• Listening to and understanding, globally and in its constituent parts, texts of various kinds,
articulated and complex; using methods and tools to fix fundamental concepts e.g. notes,
outlines,maps.
16/IT
•
•
•
•
Apply reading techniques, strategies and modes to different purposes and contexts.
Apply an orderly knowledge of the structures of the Italian language at different levels of the
system.
In the context of oral production and interaction, through active and conscious listening,
master communication situations taking into account purpose, context, recipients.
Express and support one's own point of view and recognise that of others.
Reflection: In spite of the explicit reference to “listening & understanding” and to oral production and
interaction through active and conscious listening, and the ability to “express and support one’s point of
view”, the points could also be formulated so as to prompt teachers towards Productive-DL:
e.g. the last point could be re-written as
“Use context-appropriate language to express and support one’s own point of view and effectively
communicate the acknowledgement of the viewpoints of others.”
New Vocational schools focus on more practical outcomes. As such, the L1-Italian-Language Guidelines of
New Vocational schools frequently emphasize the relevance of interdisciplinary links and the importance of
subject specific languages to the learning of the Italian language, something almost always ignored in the
lyceums.
5.2.2 The History National Indications and Guidelines
The history indications in the Scientific Lyceums are particulary relevant as central in this traditional type of
lyceums. If we read the following introduction to the 5-year course, we notice how the diverse dimensions
linked to history learning are immediately put to the fore, while teaching history is defined as:
“teaching history is to propose the unfolding of interrelated events according to time”.
Why and how this is proposed is not taken into consideration, rather it is only stated. Let’s observe the
following excerpt:
Excerpt: “At the end of the high school course the student is familiar with the main events and long-term
transformations in the history of Europe and Italy, from antiquity to the present day, within the framework
of the global history of the world; he/she uses appropriately (PL) the vocabulary and interpretative
categories proper to the discipline(PL); he/she knows how to read and evaluate the various sources; he/she
looks at history as a significant dimension for understanding, through critical discussion and comparison
(CV) between a variety of perspectives and interpretations, the roots of the present. The starting point will
be emphasising the temporal dimension of each event and the ability to place it in the correct chronological
succession (OTH) since teaching history is to propose the unfolding of interrelated events according to
time. On the other hand, the second dimension of history, namely space, should not be overlooked. History
indeed entails a geographical dimension; and human geography, in turn, needs temporal coordinates. The
two spatio-temporal dimensions must be an integral part of learning the discipline.”
Reflections
Most of the occurrences of the 7 categories were identified in the premise to the History indications, where
the expected results of the students are outlined. Surprisingly, none are present in the first two years
curriculum description, and only one in the final year:
Excerpts (p.332/3)
1)”he/she uses appropriately (PL) the vocabulary and interpretative categories proper to the discipline”;
2)” he/she knows how to read and evaluate the various sources”;
3) “he/she looks at history as a significant dimension for understanding, through critical discussion and
comparison (CV) between a variety of perspectives and interpretations, the roots of the present”.
17/IT
“…..adequate space may be reserved for activities that lead to evaluating different types of sources (TT),
reading historical documents or comparing different interpretative theses: this is in order to understand the
ways in which scholars construct the narrative of history, the variety of sources used, the succession and
contrast of different interpretations”.
To be noted how attention to study skills development is focused in the following excerpt:
Excerpt: Students will also develop a study method in line with the subject under investigation, enabling
them to summarise (PL) and schematize (VV) an expository text of a historical nature, grasping the salient
points of interpretation, exposition and the specific meanings of the disciplinary lexicon (OTH). Attention will
also have to be paid to the frequent verification of oral exposition (OTH), of which in particular it will be
desirable to monitor the accuracy in placing the events according to the correct spatial-temporal coordinates,
the coherence of the discourse and the mastery of terminology (PL).
In the first part of the introduction there are 3 instances of awareness of “discipline-specific”, counted as PL:
1. uses the vocabulary appropriated (4 words), proper to the discipline (p. 332)
2. making use of basic vocabulary of the discipline (8 words)
3. (expounds on topics) “dealt with in an articulate manner” (6 words)
Total. PL 4 + 8 + 6 = 18 words.
Reflection: Note that, while the indications acknowledge the importance of “producing good language”,
calling for “students [to] elaborate and expound on the topics dealt with in an articulate manner” , it is
interesting to note that the indications are very word-focused: “[students should] use vocabulary
appropriately… proper to the discipline”; “making use of the basic vocabulary of the discipline” .
By focusing Teachers’ attention on only vocabulary and words, such indications may communicate the
erroneous message that “languaging about history” is simply about “learning the words”. What is missing is
the need to help students produce “whole language about whole thoughts” which embody discipline-specific
words, but a list of words is not “discourse”.
To be noted is also the use of ‘teaching history’: this illustrates clearly that attention is still on the teaching
of, rather than the learning of …
5.2.3. The English as a Foreign Language (EFL) National Indications
The choice of analysing the two – Italian 1st language and English foreign language – indications and
guidelines was made in order to investigate whether and how subjects directly language connected to
learners’ use of language – either their language of origin or the first foreign language they had studied – had
been enhanced by specific indications and/or by specific tasks meant to develop learners’ awareness of the
language they studied and used.
Reflection This is an aspect to be considered also in terms of the growingly non-Italian school population
daily exposed to the language of schooling to learn. The analyses of the English L2 National Indications and
Guidelines developed for the Lyceums, Technical and Vocational schools, besides revealing the use of recent
approaches as used for foreign language teaching, in terms of established references to the CEFR levels and
to corresponding and appropriate descriptors, reveal how the emphasis is posed in the three types of schools
on teaching approaches favouring spoken and written language development, awareness of diverse cultures,
and with a stronger emphasis on literature in the scientific Lyceums. The preliminary statement at the
introduction of the English L2 indications underlines the relevance of the study of foreign language and
culture that should proceed:
Excerpt 1: “along two fundamental, interrelated axes: the development of linguistic-communicative skills and
the development of knowledge related to the cultural universe linked to the language of reference”.
The goal of the entire high school course (5 yrs) is to reach a level of proficiency to at least level B2 of the
CEFR.
18/IT
Excerpt 2: “To this end, during the high school course the student acquires the ability to understand oral and
written texts (PL) on topics of both personal and scholastic interest (literary, artistic, musical, scientific, social,
economic); to produce oral and written texts to report facts, describe situations (PL) , argue and support
opinions. (CV) ; to interact in the foreign language in a manner appropriate to both the interlocutors and the
context; to analyse and interpret aspects of the culture of the countries (CV) whose language is spoken, with
attention to topics common to several disciplines”.
Reflection: If we observe the longitudinal development within the third and fourth year where English
literature is introduced, there is a reference to the learners’ emerging cognitive & language skills
development and to the relevance of establishing connections with other disciplines through the use of
different tools, as technology, and of ‘communicating’ with foreign interlocutors;
Excerpt 3 - the learner “analyses and compares literary texts, but also artistic productions from different
languages/cultures (Italian and foreign); uses the foreign language in the study of topics from non-linguistic
disciplines; uses new information and communication technologies to study topics in depth”. In the fifth and
last year, the learner “analyses and compares literary texts coming from different languages and cultures
(Italian and foreign); he/she understands and interprets cultural products of different types and genres, on
current affairs, cinema, music, art; he/she uses new technologies to carry out research, investigate nonlinguistic topics, express him/herself creatively and communicate with foreign interlocutors”.
Counting: 13 CV, 8 PL, 2 TT
Reflection: The description of the actions leading to learning through language is not fully detailed, but
several hints at possible activities are mentioned. Interesting once more is the reference to the mother
tongue and to the need to ‘develop’ awareness of communication and of subject language specificity as well
as the reference to establishing meaningful connections with other subjects through diverse means of
communication.
English L2 in Vocational &Technical schools Guidelines
There are several points in common with the National Indications for the Lyceum English L2 curriculum, but
what is noticeable in Vocational & Technical schools is, in the first two years, the reference to aspects such
as:
“Interact in short, clear conversations” (PL) on topics of personal, everyday, social or topical interest.
“Use appropriate strategies to search for information” (PL) and understand the main points in clear, short
written and oral messages on familiar topics of personal, everyday, social or topical interest.”
“Describe (CV) in a simple manner experiences, impressions and events, related to personal, social or current
affairs.” “Produce short, simple and coherent texts on known topics of personal, everyday, social interest,
appropriate in lexical and syntactic choices.”
“Recognize (CV) the structural aspects of the language used in communicative texts in written, oral and
multimedia form”.
“ Understands the intercultural character of the English language, also in relation to its global dimension and
geographical varieties”.
Counting: 2 CV, 8 PL, 1GG
Reflections on Technical schools (1st 2 yrs) There are several hints on communication, but not a clearer
presentation of what the teacher should promote to have learners achieve the course outcomes and
develop the final profile, what is present here is a list of déjà vu actions, usually listed in language courses,
without references to ways of enhancing them. Rephrasing the list of ‘use..’ by adding where and how the
learners should be put in the position of using the language, would have helped.
Within plurilingual contexts, reference to aspects such as intercultural communication or comparative
reflection with learners’ mother tongue, meant to stimulate learners’ noticing and awareness of language
as used in spoken exchanges if related to learners’ own language of origin and other modes of oral
19/IT
interaction, could be useful ways of promoting learners’ reflection..
Reflections on Vocational schools (whole cycle)
What emerges clearly in the general outline and in the specific description of English L2 across the whole
cycle is its direct connection with the 12 main competences of the new Vocational schools (Appendix A),
where competence 5 (related to the foreign language) states:
5 - Use the sectorial sector-based languages of the foreign languages of the study courses to interact in
different fields and contexts of study and work. and in the Skills description the whole use of the 12
competences is connected to the cognitive and language dimensions of learning:
Excerpts:
“- establish connections between local cultural traditions, national and international cultural traditions, both
in an intercultural perspective and for the purposes of study and work mobility;
- use the sectorial languages of the foreign languages to interact in different fields and contexts of study and
work.study and work contexts;
- recognise the value and potential of the artistic and environment;
- identify and use modern forms of visual, multimedia and digital multimedia and digital communication,
also with reference to expressive strategies and technical tools of online communication;
- use computer networks and tools to access the web and social networks in study, research and in-depth
study activities;
- recognise the main communicative, cultural and relational aspects of bodily expressiveness and
exerciseeffective practice of sport for individual and collective wellbeing”(pp.12-14)
Counting (introduction&2yrs): 2 CV, 8 PL, 1 GG, 1 TT
Concluding remarks
As stated at the beginning (p.6), the report aimed at finding out whether current Italian National Indications
and Guidelines provided explicit guidance for building learners’ disciplinary literacies. The overview showed
that there are several , often implicit, suggestions that might develop and promote learners’ (and teachers’)
awareness of and use of disciplinary literacies. Further investigations should explore whether and which of
the learning outcomes currently present in the NI&G are already functional to disciplinary literacies
development and how they might be inter-connected with European K competences, or whether they should
be reformulated.
References
Dalton-Puffer, C. 2007. Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms.
Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, C. 2007. Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms.
Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jarvinen, H.-M. 2010. “Language as a Meaning Making Resource in Learning and Teaching Content.
Analysing Historical Writing in Content and Language Integrated Learning”. In Language Use and Language
Learning in CLIL Classrooms, edited by C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula and U. Smit, 145-168. AmsterdamPhiladelphia: John Benjamins.
20/IT
Lithuania Na*onal Report
1. Team & Process
The two members of the Lithuanian Na5onal Curriculum Analysis Team are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. The Italian Na6onal Curriculum Analysis Team
Members & Affilia6on
Interest in COST and Disciplinary Discourse
Jolita Horbačauskienė*
Language Specialist: Exper5se in EMI and
Kaunas University of
CLIL implementa5on; Formerly EFL Teacher
Technology (Lithuania)
in ter5ary level.
Milda Ratkevičienė
Kaunas University of
Technology (Lithuania)
Experience in teacher-training, curriculum
development from the perspec5ve
disciplinary literacy.
*Lithuania Na5onal Curriculum TEAM LEADER
LT-TEAM was coordinated by Jolita Horbačauskienė who located the most up-to-date curriculum documents.
Jolita Horbačauskienė was responsible for the transla5on of the na5onal curriculum from L1 (Lithuanian) to L2 (English) (using the deepl.com tool) - edi5ng,
proofreading, and matching the translated documents with the original ones. Jolita Horbačauskienė also did the ini5al search for DL items in the programs.
Milda Ratkevičienė was responsible for tagging, re-searching, analysis, and visual presenta5on of the results.
Throughout the Na5onal Curricula analysis process, both team members worked together in a collabora5ve manner. All the analyses presented in the text in
the chapters and the summary conclusions of the curriculum analysis are the result of a collabora5ve process of sharing observa5ons and insights.
1/LT
2. Na6onal School System
Figure 1 is a schema5c illustra5on of how the Lithuanian school system is organized from preschool into
ter5ary-level instruc5on.
Figure 1. Organiza5on of the Lithuanian school system (adapted from “Key features of the Lithuanian
educa5on system”, Eurydice, 20241, and European Commission, 20222)
Stages of the Lithuanian educa6on system
The educa5on system in Lithuania is decentralized rather than centralized, which means that responsibility for
the organiza5on and delivery of educa5on is divided between different levels of ins5tu5ons - the government,
the Parliament, ministries, municipali5es, and the educa5onal ins5tu5ons themselves. In general, the na5onallevel ins5tu5ons - the Government, the Parliament, and the ministries - are responsible for the formula5on of
educa5on policy and the adop5on and implementa5on of legisla5on in force at na5onal level. The middle level
of government - the municipali5es - is responsible for their own strategic educa5on plans in line with na5onal
documents, formal and nonformal educa5on, etc. Meanwhile, schools themselves, which may be public or
private, organize and deliver educa5on services in accordance with na5onal educa5on policy.
The system of educa6on in Lithuania includes the following four stages3:
• Pre-school and pre-primary educa5on (typically 0 – 7 years). Early childhood educa5on includes preprimary educa5on (which is not compulsory) and pre-primary educa5on (which is compulsory), which
is classified as non-formal educa5on. It can take place in pre-school, pre-primary, or general educa5on
secngs, or be provided by free teachers or other educa5on providers.
• Primary and lower secondary educa5on (typically 7 – 17 years). Primary educa5on in Lithuania lasts
for 4 years (grades 1-4) and is free in public ins5tu5ons. Lower secondary educa5on lasts 6 years and
is divided into two parts: the first part lasts 4 years (grades 5 to 8); the second part lasts 2 years (grades
9 to 10 or gymnasium I to II). Educa5on in Lithuania is compulsory up to the age of 16 and usually
con5nues un5l the student completes 10 years of schooling. Primary educa5on in Lithuania lasts for 4
years and is free in public ins5tu5ons, while basic educa5on lasts for 6 years. Educa5on in Lithuania is
compulsory up to the age of 16 and usually con5nues un5l a student completes 10 years of school.
• Upper secondary and voca5onal educa5on and training (typically 17 – 19 years). Secondary educa5on
(Grades 11-12 or Grades III-IV) is provided in gymnasium and voca5onal schools, which can offer both
lower secondary and upper secondary educa5on programmes. Voca5onal training is between one and
two years, either as a school-based course or as an appren5ceship.
1
Eurydice (2024). Overview Retrieved from: https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/lt/national-educationsystems/lithuania/lithuania.
2
European Commission (2022). The structure of the European education systems. Schematic diagrams. Eurydice
– Facts and Figures.
3
Eurydice (2023). 2. Bendroji švietimo sistemos struktūra ir švietimo valdymas. Retrieved from:
https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/lt/national-education-systems/lithuania/svietimo-sistema-ir-jos-struktura.
2/LT
•
Higher educa5on. Higher educa5on is for people with at least upper secondary educa5on and is
organised in colleges or universi5es. The degrees awarded are divided into bachelor's (awarded in
colleges (voca5onal) or universi5es (university), 3 - 4 years), master's (awarded in universi5es, 1.5 - 2
years), doctorate (awarded in universi5es, 4 years).
Currently, general educa5on in Lithuania (including lower secondary and upper secondary educa5on) is based
on the Law on Educa5on, which is the primary legal act governing educa5on in Lithuania. Curriculum inventory
for primary, basic, and secondary educa5on approved by the Lithuanian Ministry of Educa5on, Science and
Sport (approved in 2023). However, in 2022, a very important change was made in the field of pre-primary,
primary, basic, and secondary educa5on in Lithuania, with the approval of the new Common Curricula for Preprimary, Primary, Basic, and Secondary Educa5on. It is very important to note that this ini5a5ve has
fundamentally changed the educa5on system at this level (see further for more details on these curricula). The
content, achievement, and assessment of learning (e.g. mid-term examina5ons, gradua5on exams, etc.) are
developed and implemented on the basis of these documents.
It should also be noted that mul5lingualism in schools is not regulated by law, except in the case of educa5on
in na5onal minority schools, in which case children are taught both their mother tongue and Lithuanian as the
state language, as well as foreign languages in the framework of the general curriculum. Mul5lingualism in the
country's schools is also an ini5a5ve to be promoted in the context of the idea of a mul5lingual Europe, i.e., to
ensure that ci5zens are able to speak not only the na5onal language but also at least one foreign language of
the European Union. More and more schools are therefore op5ng for mul5lingualism prac5ces (e.g.
Interna5onal Baccalaureate classes taught in English), independently but without prejudice to na5onal
documents.
3. The Survey
Figure 2 illustrates which Lithuanian curriculum documents were translated into English and which were
analyzed with the coding system described in Sec5on 1.
Figure 2. Lithuanian curricular documents which were translated into English documents which were
surveyed for men5ons of produc've disciplinary literacies, as described in Sec5on 1
3/LT
As can be seen in Figure 2, the main subjects chosen for the analysis were the core subjects of primary and
secondary educa5on - history, Lithuanian as a mother tongue, English as a first foreign language, mathema5cs,
physics, and sciences, which are only taught in grades 5-8, that is, implemented in lower secondary educa5on,
and chemistry, which is taught in grades 7-12, that is, implemented in upper secondary educa5on.
These subjects have been chosen because they are similar in an interna5onal context, allowing a compara5ve
perspec5ve to be taken in this analysis. The choice was also influenced by the fact that these subjects cover a
fairly wide range of knowledge, both sciences and humani5es, and are taught in virtually the en5re general
educa5on curriculum (not to men5on primary educa5on). In addi5on, subjects that are essen5ally fixed (not
in terms of content), i.e. they have been included in the general curriculum since the country's independence,
except for sciences. The sciences curriculum is chosen because it is rela5vely new but is included to strengthen
children's basic knowledge of sciences.
Original L1 Documents can be found in (hnps://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13G1MUQaaEVPZCH82Uyo-IexJAtBqGkN),
the
English
transla5on
of
these
documents
can
be
found
in
(hnps://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16h8Uqr-Tj6TucQN2KE_yxubXB8Dg-WeX) and the surveyed
documents
can
be
found
in
(hnps://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mRJ6HWayGgMsIfVznTbBo3kvZlXBazvc)).
As men5oned above, the new Curriculum Programmes for pre-primary, primary, primary and secondary
educa5on were adopted in 2022. As the focus of this analysis is on secondary curricula, it is appropriate to
elaborate on the composi5on of these curricula in some detail. All curricula consist of seven main parts:
I.
General provisions – general background informa5on focused on the programme of the subject.
II.
Aim and objec5ves – details the aim and objec5ves of the programme.
III.
Developing competences – subject-oriented competences, detailing the essen5al elements of the
competences.
IV.
Areas of achievements and achievements – detailed defini5ons of pupils' achievements and their
levels by grade.
V.
Content of the training(s) – curriculum content, broken down by grade.
VI.
Assessing pupil’s achievements – the process for assessing achievement in the subject.
VII.
Characteris5cs of pupils‘ levels of achievements by anainment area – summarised informa5on for the
whole programme, focusing on achievements.
It is also very important to note that the curricula are not divided by grade. Only Part IV (Areas of Achievements
and Accomplishments) details the levels of achievement for each grade, and Part V (Content of the training(s))
details the content of the training(s) for a par5cular grade. The analysis therefore also provides a general
analysis without specifying the grades, except for more detailed DL analyses by grade in the Areas of
achievements and achievements analysis.
Given the large size of the na5onal programmes, and in par5cular the humani5es programmes (up to 250
pages), it was decided not to analyze the en5re programme. Figure 3 shows the logic of which parts of the
document of the na5onal curricula were analyzed.
4/LT
Figure 3. Curricular documents’ chapter which were surveyed for men5ons of produc've disciplinary
literacies, as described in Sec5on 1
As can be seen in Figure 3, all parts of the curricula were chosen for analysis, with the excep5on of Chapter
VII, because, as already men5oned, this part is summarizing, i.e., no summary informa5on is provided to
consolidate the key messages of the achievements. Therefore, to avoid repea5ng the analysis of the elements
already analyzed, it has been decided not to include this part in the analysis.
Sec6on 4. Survey Results: Data, analysis, findings & reflec6ons
This research is focused on the ques5on whether Lithuania‘s na5onal secondary educa5on curricula draw the
anen5on of teachers to the need to build their students’ academic language or disciplinary knowledge as an
essen5al parallel process accompanying content learning.
The categories of disciplinary literacy analysis are the following:
• men5on of the ability of students to perform verbal ac6ons based on thinking skills (CV), using
command verbs deno5ng language ac6ons;
• men5on of the student’s awareness of genre or text-types (GG);
• other men5ons of the produc6ve use of language by students (PL) to show learning that are not
covered by the first two types;
• men5on of students’ ability to navigate, use, and also show learning through digital literacy elements
(DD);
• men5on of the ability of students to extract informa5on from visual elements (VV) for learning and
also use visual elements to show their knowledge;
• men5on the ability of the students to work with subject-specific realia (TT) required to carry out
subject-specific hands-on ac5ons;
• all what is (OTH) relevant but does not fall into the categories above.
5/LT
An analysis of how DL manifests itself in the na5onal curricula shows that different elements of DL can be
found in all the programmes, although they are expressed very differently (see Figure 3).
Figure 4. DL in na5onal curricula
As can be seen in Figure 4, it is not a surprise that the humani5es curricula are the richest in the expression of
DL elements: the results show that the category of verbal ac5ons based on thinking is dominant in Lithuanian
language discipline, followed by instances of produc5ve use of language. In addi5on to the "sox" DL elements,
the digital or visual elements are also quite frequent in the humani5es curricula. While in the sciences
curricula, the Verbal ac5ons based on thinking skills element is quite dominant (in chemistry 137, while in
maths only 46), and in the mathema5cs curricula, the visual element is prominent accoun5ng for 77 men5ons.
For instances of verbal ac5ons based on thinking skills (see Figure 5), it can be noted that these DL items are
usually defined by words such as relate, evaluate, compare iden5fy.
Figure 5. Instances of verbal ac5ons based on thinking skills
6/LT
In terms of the elements of the DL CV, the Lithuanian na5onal curricula focus mainly on basic knowledge and
skills. Examples illustra5ng this are given below:
- cri5cally evaluate popular science texts (CV), (Chemistry curriculum, p. 3);
- cri6cally evalua6ng historical narra5ves and sources of historical knowledge (CV), (History curriculum,
p. 4);
- select relevant informa5on from different sources in a variety of ways, compare (CV), cri5cally
evaluate (CV), classify, summarise, interpret and combine informa5on from different sources (Physics
curriculum, p. 5);
- select informa5on from a variety of sources (CV), (Sciences curriculum, p. 4).
- cri5cally reflects (CV) on mathema5cal ac5vi5es and their outcomes, (Maths curriculum, p. 3);
- describe (CV) the rights and du5es of a ci5zen, analyse why it is necessary to defend one's rights and
fulfil one's du5es (L2 curriculum, p. 5).
For instances of genre or text types the most commonly used text types are summaries, messages, essays, CVs,
etc. (see Figure 6). These types are men5oned in rela5on to students' need to be able to create and analyze
the texts.
Figure 6. Instances of genre or text-types
As for the elements of DL GG, their variety in the na5onal curricula is quite wide: students need to know, be
able to create, and analyze a wide range of genres or text types. Most GG elements can be found in the history,
L1 or L2 curricula, but they are also present in, for example, mathema5cs curricula. Below are some examples:
- Wri5ng texts of a personal nature: a leZer (GG), a diary (GG); texts of a subject nature: an ar6cle (GG)
on the problems of young people's lives, an interview (GG), an essay (GG)rela5ng to a work of
literature, an annota6on (GG), a characterisa6on (GG), an autobiography (GG), a report (GG) on a
piece of work (e.g. research), a mo6va6on leZer (GG), and a folder of work (GG). (L1 curriculum, p.
90);
- create <…> a mathema6cal report (GG), (Maths curriculum, p. 5);
- Writes detailed wrinen descrip5ons (GG) of a wide range of subjects and events <...> writes an
informa5ve report (GG), a curriculum vitae (GG); writes a review (GG) and/or tes6monial (GG) of <...>
book (GG), (L2 curriculum, p. 12).
7/LT
Instances of produc5ve use of language are reflected by words such as argue, express, reflect, apply, jus5fy
(see Figure 7).
Figure 7. Instances of produc5ve use of language
The expression of DL PL elements in na5onal curricula is also quite broad. PL illustrates how and in which
contexts the use of language is defined. Below are some examples to show the expression of PL in different
na5onal curricula:
- to discuss (PL) the cultural, historical, social and other contexts in which they operate; (L1 curriculum,
p. 100);
- When communica5ng with a real or imaginary interlocutor or in a group, students learn to choose and
combine different mathema5cal communica5on strategies (PL), and gain a beZer understanding (PL)
of the purpose and features of mathema5cal language. (Maths curriculum, p. 3);
- crea5vely applies exis5ng knowledge, skills and research findings in standard situa5ons (PL), (Sciences
curriculum, p. 15);
- formulates (PL) the problem ques5ons, related research objec5ves and hypotheses (Physics
curriculum, p. 11);
- apply (PL) their cultural knowledge in personal and social life and in the process of foreign language
teaching (L2 curriculum, p. 5);
- use chemistry concepts and terms meaningfully in their own language (PL); (Chemistry curriculum,
p. 3);
- construct (PL) a historical narra5ve based on historical knowledge, the iden5fica5on and analysis of
sources, the cultural context and the arguments, based on the values of democracy, humanism,
empathy and human solidarity; (History curriculum, p. 1 – 2).
8/LT
The digital element of DL is also very dominant in the curricula (see Figure 8), oxen manifes5ng itself through
the aim of empowering students to create and develop digital content, to be able to interact in virtual space,
to be able to find the right informa5on on the Internet, and to use different pla|orms, tools and apps.
Figure 8. Instances of digital literacy elements
As data in na5onal curricula demonstrate, DD is essen5al for the educa5on of today's learners. Therefore, the
expression of DD elements is very wide and varies in all the curricula analyzed. Below are some illustra5ons
that show the contexts and meanings of DD as an element of DL:
- crea6ve use of digital technologies, interac6ve simula6ons or virtual laboratories to search for
informa5on, collect and process research data, inves5gate processes and phenomena (DD), (Chemistry
curriculum, p. 5);
- using the possibili5es of modern technologies (DD) (mapping pla]orms (DD), mobile apps (DD), etc.),
(History curriculum, p. 7);
- students should also gain experience in using digital (DD) content for mathema5cs learning and
educa5onal applica5ons that shorten the solu5on path. (Maths curriculum, p. 21);
- in physics lessons, ac5vi5es are planned and organised in such a way as to enable students to use
digital technologies (DD) in a skilful, crea5ve and purposeful way in a variety of tasks <…> (Physics
curriculum, p. 4)
- use of a range of digital devices, tools, technologies and to interact in the digital environment (DD),
(Sciences curriculum, p. 4);
- develop informa6on technology literacy (DD) by crea6ng e-books (DD), films (edi5ng and publishing)
(DD), crea6ng (DD) and broadcas6ng podcasts (DD), <…> composing (DD) and edi6ng audiovisual
works (DD), (L1 curriculum, p. 6);
- Students develop digital competence (DD) when they understand the main ideas and details of the
videos, TV programmes, films they watch; use digital dic6onaries (DD), transla6on programmes (DD),
other comprehension tools (DD), (L2 curriculum, p. 4);
9/LT
Visual elements are also very important in the learning process (see Figure 9). The aim is for students to be
able to present results in appropriate formats (tables, charts and graphs), to analyze photos, pictures, maps,
create family trees and other visual elements using the right tools.
Figure 9. Instances of visual elements
Here you can see examples from different na5onal curricula of how the elements of VV appear in the context
of DL:
- presents results in appropriate formats (tables, charts and graphs) (VV), (Chemistry curriculum, p. 13);
- Compares maps (VV) from different periods and uses them to iden5fy changes and their causes,
(History curriculum, p. 13);
- independently analyses mathema5cal messages in various forms (text, figure, diagram, chart,
formula, table, drawing, graph, diagram) (VV) and combina5ons of forms (text, figure, diagram,
formula, table, drawing, graph, diagram) (VV), (Maths curriculum, p. 9 – 10);
- presents data in the form of tables (VV), graphs (VV) or other selected methods (VV), (Physics
curriculum, p. 14);
- learning how to turn a text into a graphic structure (VV): drawing ac6on diagrams (VV), a network
(VV) of connec5ons and rela5onships between the characters in a work, etc. (L1 curriculum, p. 83);
- presents data in the form of tables (VV), graphs (VV) or other selected methods (VV), (Sciences
curriculum, p. 13);
- creates presenta5ons with notes and visual elements, voice-overs (VV); produces a film, report,
interview about personali5es, environmental phenomena, important events, different (L2 curriculum,
p. 12 – 13).
10/LT
Instances of subject-specific realia (see Figure 10) are usually revealed through a variety of specific skills in
handling nonverbal tools, correc5ng, proofreading, exploring and other ac5vi5es.
Figure 10. Instances of subject specific realia
As for the expression of the TT elements in the na5onal curricula, it should be noted that, unlike the other DL
elements, their defini5ons tend to be very subject-specific, i.e. they are very specifically related to the subject
in whose context they appear. Examples of the expression of TT in na5onal curricula are given below:
- Draws (TT) on sources or historiographical examples to explain why one or other person qualifies as a
historical figure, (History curriculum, p. 11).
- choosing (TT) appropriate reading methods according to the task and the nature of the text (L1
curriculum, p. 15)
- Students learn <…> using numerical tools as well (TT) (Maths curriculum, p. 23)
- Uses (TT) natural science concepts, terms and conven5onal signs correctly to explain phenomena,
(Physics curriculum, p. 9);
- listening comprehension (A1): comprehension of spoken instruc6ons (TT), direc6ons (TT),
announcements (TT), conversa6ons (TT), debates (TT), reports (TT), speeches (TT), lectures (TT), oral
narra6ves (TT), spoken journalis6c (TT) or popular science texts (TT), (L2 curriculum, 6 p.)
Meanwhile, when it comes to the instances of DL OTH elements in the na5onal curricula, OTH tends to emerge
in the defini5on of more abstract, interdisciplinary competencies and competencies to be developed. Some
examples of OTH from different na5onal curricula are given below:
- develop their science literacy (OTH), (Chemistry curriculum, p. 2);
- consider ques6ons (OTH) of authorship and reliability, (History curriculum, p. 7);
- the ability to respect (OTH) copyright and accepted rules for the presenta5on of bibliographic
informa5on, (History curriculum, p. 8);
- creates a posi6ve environment (OTH) (L1 curriculum, p. 16);;
- Mathema5cal language is developed through observa5on, descrip5on of mathema5cal models and
objects, explora5on of natural and social phenomena, works of art and literature, etc.” (OTH) (Maths
curriculum, p. 3)
- This enables pupils to develop cri5cal and crea5ve thinking and problem-solving skills (OTH), to pose
personal challenges, to generate new knowledge (OTH) (Physics curriculum, p.1).
As the new curricula are based on developing students’ competencies in each discipline, it was interes5ng to
see the manifesta5on of DL in this par5cular sec5on (see Figure 11).
When analyzing the manifesta5on of DL in the competences part of the na5onal curricula, it was observed
that all types of DL can be found in the history curriculum and that their expression is quite similar. It is
11/LT
interes5ng to note that in the L1 curriculum the digital element is the most expressed in the descrip5on of
competences, while in chemistry it is Verbal ac5ons based on thinking skills.
Figure 10. DL in na5onal curricula‘s Competences sec5on
The aim was also to analyze whether there is a difference in the expression of DL when comparing the
achievements of the students at different grades. As shown in Figure 11 example of Lithuanian as a mother
tongue (L1), no significant differences emerged when comparing manifesta5on of DL in different grades. Even
when comparing the general and advanced levels of gymnasium III-IV, there is no significant difference.
Figure 11. DL in L1 achievement sec5on (grade 5 – gymnasium IV)
When analyzing how DL is manifested in the history curriculum in a grade-by-grade comparison (see Figure
12), it is observed that in the last grades there is no emphasis on digital and visual elements, which are present
12/LT
to some extent in other grades. While the frequency of verbal ac5ons based on thinking (CV) is increasing with
a higher level of secondary educa5on.
Figure 12. DL in History achievement sec5on (grade 5 – gymnasium IV)
When analyzing the achievements of the chemistry curriculum in the different grades (see Figure 13), it was
once again observed that the sciences curriculum is not characterized by an orienta5on towards digital or
visual DL elements, but rather by the expression of "sox" DL competences such as verbal ac5ons based on
thinking skills.
Figure 13. DL in Chemistry achievement sec5on (grade 7 – gymnasium IV)
It is also very important to note that interdisciplinarity is reflected in the na5onal secondary educa5on
curricula. As the aims or objec5ves of the curricula, and priori5es are set to enable pupils to develop crosscurricular content in order to see science as part of the natural, social and cultural environment.
13/LT
For example, in the Lithuanian curriculum as the mother tongue, the skills to create digital content are
highlighted by crea5ng digital content related to the subject of Lithuanian language and literature and crosscurricular digital content are highlighted; in History universal interdisciplinary concepts used in the language
of the various humani5es are men5oned to represent interdisciplinarity; in Chemistry – raising students’
awareness to cri5cally evaluate the technologies emerging from advances in chemical science and their role in
human life and their rela5onship to the natural, social, and cultural environment; in Math – mathema5cal
language is developed through explora5on of natural and social phenomena, works of art, and literature.
Thus, in summary, it can be stated that various men5ons of disciplinary literacies can be found in Lithuanian
na5onal curricula. The representa5on of disciplinary literacies is quite rich, and all na5onal curricula focus on
competence development.
The humani5es are characterized by a greater variety of disciplinary literacy instances, while the sciences are,
paradoxically, more characterized by elements of verbal ac5ons based on thinking skills and produc5ve use of
language.
14/LT
The Netherlands National Report
1. Team & process
The Dutch national team for this task consisted of four members, as illustrated in Table 1.
Team member
Position &
Organisation
Subject
specialis
m
Roles & relevant expertise
Dr Tessa Mearns
Assistant professor,
Leiden University
Modern
Researcher & teacher educator
Languages Applied linguistics, CLIL, bilingual education
Prof. Rick de
Graaff
Full professor, Utrecht
University
Modern
Researcher & teacher educator
Languages Applied linguistics, CLIL, bilingual
education, multilingualism, languageoriented content teaching
Dr Jannet van Drie
Associate professor,
University of
Amsterdam
History
Researcher & teacher educator
Historical reasoning, language in history
education
Dr Gerald van Dijk
Senior lecturer,
Amsterdam University
of Applied Sciences
STEM
Researcher & teacher educator
STEM teaching, language-oriented content
teaching
Table 1: Netherlands national team
All members of the team contributed to retrieving the L1 curriculum, and for translating and
proofreading translations of the relevant sections. As can be seen in Table 2, each team member was
responsible for the first analysis of one or more subject curricula. Those analyses were then checked
by at least one other member of the team. These steps took place in parallel with each other. Once
all analyses were completed, Tessa Mearns collated the analysis documents, performed final checks
on the analysis, ensured that the documents were in line with each other. She wrote the final
reflections in the analysis documents and the other team members checked them and suggested
improvements. This national report was authored by Tessa Mearns and Rick de Graaff.
Team member
Tasks
Tessa Mearns
First coding L2 English & Maths curricula; checked all other analyses; collated and
prepared analysis documents; synthesised reflections for final documents;
quantitative analyses; co-authored final report
Rick de Graaff
First coding L1 Dutch curriculum; checked analysis of L2 English & Maths curricula;
checked final reflections; co-authored final report
Jannet van Drie
First coding Humans and Society (social sciences) curriculum; checked analysis of
Humans and Nature (natural science) curriculum; checked final reflections
Gerald van Dijk
First coding Humans and Nature (natural sciences) curriculum; checked analysis of
Humans and Society (social sciences) curriculum; checked final reflections
Table 2: Distribution of tasks
1/NL
2. The national school system
Figure 1. Structure of the Dutch education system1
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
1
In the Netherlands, the school system is divided into primary, secondary and tertiary levels.
After primary education (8 years, at age 12) pupils are streamed into three different
secondary school types: pre-vocational (4 yrs), general secondary (5 yrs), pre-university
(6yrs).
National curriculum descriptions are available at the primary, lower secondary and upper
secondary level, taking into account the different school types.
Curriculum descriptions focus on general characteristics and achievement goals at program
level, for each school subject separately.
Curriculum descriptions do NOT specify content, planning or pedagogies. This is the schools’
own responsibility, who usually make use of materials by (commercial) textbook publishers
Achievement goals are evaluated at the end of primary and of (upper) secondary education
by means of national standardised tests, usually in combination with school-based
assessments.
During lower secondary education, achievement goals are evaluated by means of schoolbased assessment, usually in combination with tests provided by (commercial) textbook
publishers.
Bilingual Education (CLIL/TTO) is provided as an option mainly at lower secondary level, for
all school types
For this report, we have analysed the national curriculum descriptions at the lower
secondary level. Note that in terms of achievement goals these do not distinguish between
pre-vocational, general secondary and pre-university school types.
The following subjects have been included in the analysis presented in this chapter (see also
Table 3):
○ Dutch [L1]
○ English [first FL]
Source: https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/netherlands/overview
2/NL
○
○
○
Arithmetic and mathematics [henceforth ‘maths’]
Humans and nature [henceforth ‘natural science’]
Humans and society [humanities & social science, henceforth ‘social science’]
NB: All these subjects are compulsory in lower form secondary education. Dutch,
English and Maths are core subjects, which implies they remain compulsory in upper
secondary education.
2.1. The details
Figure 2. Dutch educational tracks, including bilingual options2
Figure 2 outlines the structure of the educational tracks in the Netherlands, including presence and
prevalence of accredited bilingual programmes (data from 2021). The Dutch educational system
comprises primary, secondary and tertiary/higher education. Education is compulsory from age 5 to
age 18 (primary and secondary). After eight years of primary education (age 4-12), pupils are
selected for a diversified system of secondary education, based on primary school’s advice and
national diagnostic tests. Secondary education is subdivided into three tracks, with further
subdivisions.
Language of schooling is Dutch (or Frisian as a regional language in primary education). Schools can
offer part of their program through English (max. 15% in primary education, min 30% in
prevocational education, min. 50% in lower secondary and min. 25% in upper secondary). A limited
number of primary schools have received permission to offer 50% of their program through English.
For secondary schools with a bilingual program, additional quality assurance criteria apply (see
https://www.nuffic.nl/sites/default/files/2020-08/kwaliteitsstandaard-tweetalig-onderwijs-2-0.pdf).
Most bilingual schools also offer a ‘regular’ Dutch-taught program. Core achievement goals are
identical for regular and bilingual education, with additional bilingual education goals for proficiency
level in English, global citizenship and personal development.
Foreign languages taught are English, French and German. English is compulsory from upper primary
until the end of upper secondary education. Some schools also offer Spanish, Mandarin, Arabic,
2
Source: Mearns T.L., Kampen E. van & Admiraal W. (2023), CLIL in The Netherlands: three decades of
innovation and development. In: Banegas D.L. & Zappa-Hollman S. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of content
and language integrated learning: Routledge.
3/NL
Turkish, Italian or Russian. Schools with high numbers of pupils with other home languages than
Dutch may use homelanguages in informal communication, although practices are rather limited so
far.
For the Disciplinary Literacy curriculum analysis we have focused on the lower secondary education
level. Although the educational system at the secondary level is diversified and selective, the
achievement goals are not specified for the educational levels separately, meaning that the same
objectives apply to the first three years of pre-vocational (vmbo), general (havo) and pre-university
(vwo) tracks. The lower secondary achievement goals are compulsory, but are not tested nationally:
it is the schools’ responsibility to monitor and assure their program quality and their pupils’
achievement level.
Core achievement goals are defined by the Ministry of Education, and developed by the National
Curriculum Agency SLO: Kerndoelen - SLO
The current core achievement goals were defined in 2006. Currently, new core achievement goal are
developed and may be implemented shortly: Actualisatie kerndoelen | SLO
3. This survey
The curriculum document used for this survey was Karakteristieken en Kerndoelen: Onderbouw
voortgezet onderwijs (Characteristics and Core Objectives: Lower secondary education; SLO, 2006).
This curriculum document provides the parameters for the curriculum in the eight core curricular
domains for lower secondary education (approximately age 12-15) and applies to the first three
years of the pre-vocational, general and pre-university tracks (see Figure 1). The core curriculum is
the same for all schools, whether in Dutch-language and bilingual (Dutch-English) streams. See
Section 2 for a more detailed account of the status and role of this document.
The original document can be accessed via
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WqVKOHlFIuhqcJGjV0YqCLFfRz1vQihA/view?usp=drive_link. For
the purpose of analysis, the document was retrieved from
https://slo.nl/publish/pages/4881/karakteristieken-en-kerndoelen-onderbouw-vo.pdf on 24 October
2024. The English translation of the sections referred to in the analysis can be accessed via
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Nt53ips7zTYZyuvY_N4VtCqDurQVGE0Rd0mwpwibFs/edit?usp=drive_link.
Table 3 presents an overview of the sections of the curriculum document analysed for the purpose
of this survey. These sections were selected as they addressed the specific subject areas targeted by
the COST Action. The sections on the domains Arts and Culture and Movement and Sport were not
included in the analysis as they were not the core focus of the action.
Subject domain
(details in brackets)
Pages
Pages
(original (English
)
)
Analysis document
Dutch
(official L1)
7-8
1-2
NL_AN_L1DUTCH_lowersec_Rd 596
G_TM
English
(official first FL; there are no
separate goals for other FL)
8-9
2-3
NL_AN_ENG_lowersec_TM_Rd
G
4/NL
Words
analyse
d
(English)
473
Maths
9-10
3-5
NL_AN_MATH_lowersec_TM_R 582
dG
Natural science (e.g. biology,
chemistry, physics, technology)
10-12
5-6
NL_AN_SCI_lowersec_GvD_JvD
_TM
699
Social science (e.g. history,
geography, social studies)
12-15
6-8
NL_AN_SOCSCI_lower_JvD_Gv
D_RdG_TM
866
Total words analysed 3216
Table 3. Sections of Characteristics and Core Objectives (SLO, 2006) analysed in this survey
As a major curriculum innovation is currently under preparation, we decided to analyse only the
lower form secondary education curriculum documents, as these are also the core of the COST
target group. As soon as the core achievement goals for primary and lower secondary education
have been implemented, as well as the final achievement goals for upper secondary, we aim at
extending the current analysis. According to recent developments, it is expected that the future
documents will have a much stronger focus on the role of language in learning, and therefore on
disciplinary literacies, than the actual version from 2006.
4. Survey Results: Data, analysis, findings & reflections
In line with the objectives of this part of the COST CLILNetLE action, the goal of this survey was to
examine to what extent aspects of disciplinary literacy (as defined by Nikula et al., 2024,
https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/detail/o:2050621) are present in the national curriculum document
described above, for five key curriculum areas in lower secondary education. The relevant sections
of the document (outlined in Table 3) were analysed using the codebook summarised in Table 4, as
provided to all participating national teams:
Code Meaning
CV
Command verbs (i.e. Cognitive Discourse Functions / CDFs)
GG
Genres and text-types
PL
Productive use of language (not CDFs or genres/text-types)
DD
Elements of digital literacy
VV
Visual elements for learning or for sharing knowledge
TT
Subject-specific realia required for undertaking subject-specific hands-on actions
OTH
Anything else relevant to (subject-specific) communication not covered by the above
categories
Table 4: Coding scheme provided to all national teams, for use in this survey
5/NL
Here, we begin by briefly presenting some descriptive statistics pertaining to the numbers of
occurrences of the above codes in total and across the different subject areas. After that, we will
discuss in more detail the forms taken by each of the seven aspects of disciplinary literacies
identified in Table 4.
On the whole, our impression is that the curriculum characteristics and objectives as described in the
document included relatively little attention for disciplinary literacies. In total, 120 occurrences of
disciplinary literacies were identified in the 3216 words analysed across the five subject areas
outlined in Table 3.
Figure 3 displays as percentages the total numbers of occurrences of each of the above aspects of
disciplinary literacies. As this illustration shows, command verbs (CV) occurred most frequently,
followed by attention for genres or text types (GG), and other uses of productive language (PL).
Aspects not addressed by the other codes (OTH) also featured heavily, as will be exemplified later in
this chapter. Digital tools (DD), visual aspects (VV) and subject-specific realia (TT) occurred least
frequently when all subjects were considered together. At a first glance, this appears to suggest an
important role for the linguistic aspects of disciplinary literacies, with digital, visual and practical
elements being mentioned less frequently. As is explored below, however, examination of the
occurrences per subject area, and more in-depth, qualitative exploration of the curriculum texts
reveals that this is not consistently the case.
Figure 3. % occurrences of aspects of disciplinary literacies codes across all five subjects
Figure 4 provides a visual summary of the number of occurrences of each of the above codes in each
of the five subject-specific sections of the curriculum document presented in Table 3. This provides a
richer picture and reveals considerable differences between subjects.
6/NL
Figure 4. Occurrences of each code per subject
Most notably, Figure 4 shows that the overall distribution across subjects is uneven, with only 9
coded occurrences in total for Natural Science, compared to 36 for Mathematics, 28 for English, 24
for Social Science and 23 for Dutch. Furthermore, each of the codes is distributed differently across
the subject areas. The heavy emphasis on command verbs (CV) suggested by Figure 4 stems largely
from the Social Science and Mathematics curricula, which contained respectively 11 and 9
occurrences of this code. Genres and text types (GG) were most heavily represented in English and
Mathematics (6 each), with few occurrences in the other subjects. Perhaps unsurprisingly, other
types of productive language (PL) occurred most frequently in the languages (English: 8; Dutch: 5).
The Mathematics curriculum was the source of 9 out of 11 mentions of visual elements of the
subject (VV), while most mentions of subject-specific realia (TT) stemmed from social science (5).
The languages and mathematics contained the largest numbers of ‘Other’ aspects we considered
relevant to disciplinary literacies (6 each), followed by social science (4). Further reflections on the
subject-specific analysis can be found in the analysis documents linked from Table 3. Below, we
delve briefly into the findings per aspect of disciplinary literacies.
Command verbs
28% of occurrences of disciplinary literacies were classed by our team as being command verbs (CV),
making this the most commonly-used code. Analysing for command verbs as defined in the list of
cognitive discourse functions (CDFs - see [...] for an overview) was, however, both enlightening and a
challenge. The enlightening aspect was the observation that different subject areas employed CDFs
in quite different ways and to different extents. This was also part of the challenge, as the language
used in the different curricula was not always comparable. Furthermore, the command verbs used in
the curricula, while identified by subject experts as denoting CDFs, were not always easily aligned
with the definitions and examples of CDFs in the literature and the coding scheme. For example, on
several occasions we encountered command verbs equating to a notion of ‘drawing connections’,
but we did not see an obvious place for ‘connect’ in the list of CDFs provided. We decided to classify
these examples as CDF-categorise. Figure 5 provides an overview of the actual command verbs used
in the analysed curricula.
7/NL
Figure 5. Command verbs in 5 subject curricula combined
Figure 6 quantifies the spread of the seven CDF types across the different subjects. All seven CDFs
were observed, although to differing degrees and in different subjects. CDF-categorise was identified
in all five subject areas, often in the ‘connect’ form referred to above. These occurrences were most
frequent in the social science and natural science curricula. Also frequently identified was CDFevaluate, manifested in CVs such as ‘assess’, ‘argue’ and ‘reflect’, which featured in all subjects apart
from natural science. CDF-report was identified four times, all of them through the CV ‘present’ and
three of them in the curriculum for Dutch. CDF-explain was identified directly and also in references
to giving reasoned opinions or drawing conclusions, in Dutch, mathematics and social science; and
CDF-explore related to formulating questions and hypothesising, in the natural and social sciences.
CDF-define and CDF-describe were each identified only once, the former in the natural science
curriculum (characterising as part of the design process) and the latter in mathematics, where it is
used directly in relation to processing data.
Most striking when comparing across subjects is the relative absence of occurrences in the
curriculum for English. We interpret the reason for this as being the lack of any concrete content in
the characteristics and objectives of English, as described in the analysed document. The goals of
English as a subject are almost entirely communicative, and the only content referred to is the
possibility to relate texts handled in English to content from other subjects. In this sense, English
does not appear to be positioned as a discipline in its own right at all. This contrasts to some extent
with Dutch, whose curriculum contained seven occurrences of CV, although it should be noted that
three of those referred to giving presentations, with no indication of what those presentations
would be about. In addition, we were interested to note that the mathematics curriculum contained
the largest number of occurrences of CV, while social science contained the broadest range of CDFs.
Figure 6. Occurrences of CDFs identified in subject curricula
8/NL
Genres & text types
13% of the examples coded were related to genres and text types. The examples in Figure 7 show a
variety of genres/text types. Interestingly, most seem to relate to informative and expository text,
and fewer to persuasive or narrative texts. The only two examples of the latter are stories and
poems, mentioned in the curriculum for Dutch. Although the current documents date back to 2006,
there is some attention for internet and electronic communication (i.e. email and internet chat).
Figure 7. Genres/text types in 5 subject curricula combined
Comparing the different subject areas reveals some notable differences. While the curriculum for
English includes quantitatively the most references to genres and text types, the genres it addresses
are communicative rather than subject-specific (e.g. letter, email, colloquial language, ask for help).
Genres related to subject areas such as language sciences or language arts are not present, nor are
creative genres such as poetry and fiction, or non-fiction genres such as informative or persuasive
texts. While the curriculum for Dutch also has a largely communicative focus, it does include some of
these genres as well. The only text types identified in the curriculum for social science were
‘different types of sources’ and ‘historical sources’; the forms those might take were not mentioned.
Natural science does not refer to any genres or text types at all. Mathematics, on the other hand,
mentions a range of different forms of presenting and communicating subject-specific knowledge,
such as formal and informal notations, and mathematical models.
Other types of productive language
Productive language use not explicitly related to CDFs amounted for 13% of the coded examples. As
can be seen in the overview in Figure 8, many of these mentions were fairly broad, for example
referring to variations on ‘communicating’, ‘writing’ or ‘expressing’. Other examples were more
specific communicative functions (e.g. ‘purchase something’) but without the cognitive element
required in order to class them as CDFs. Some of the examples coded in this category relate to
productive language use only implicitly. We opted to include those incidences (e.g. ‘build a basic
vocabulary’ - English; ‘search for information’ - Dutch; ‘read and analyse maps’ - social science) as
they are closely linked to productive language: building vocabulary is essential for generation of
output, and searching and analysing for information involve formulating inquiries.
9/NL
Figure 8. Productive language as mentioned in 5 subject curricula combined
It is perhaps not surprising that nearly all mentions of productive language occur in the curriculum
for the languages (English and Dutch). As mentioned above, however, these subjects’ relatively
heavy emphasis on language’s communicative functions rather than on its role in cognitive activities
appears to reflect the current position of languages in education in the Netherlands.
Elements of digital literacy
11% of all DL mentions were related to elements of digital literacies. Those mentions were rather
broad and generic, with the exception of calculation equipment appearing in the mathematics
curriculum. In this regard, it is important to remember that the current documents were published in
2006, which could explain the relative lack of attention for digital literacies, and the absence of
reference to social media, fake news, AI, etc.
Figure 9. Elements of digital literacy in 5 subject curricula combined
The ways in which digital elements were referred to in different subject areas did differ somewhat
per subject. Mathematics, English and Dutch pointed to a range of uses and purposes, including the
role of digital equipment as “support, tool, source of information and means of communication”
(Mathematics curriculum). English also focused on the communicative tasks associated with the
internet and computers, such as writing emails and chatting online. Both Dutch and social science
refer to the use of “digital sources'' without further specification. The natural science curriculum did
not mention digital elements at all.
Visual elements
Visual elements accounted for 9% of DL mentions. These appeared almost exclusively in the
curriculum documents for mathematics (9 out of 11 occurrences), where a range of visual elements
(depicted in Figure 10) were identified explicitly as being part of “mathematical language”. The only
two mentions of visual elements in subjects other than maths were “images” as a means of
supporting oral presentations in Dutch, and maps as part of social sciences. The curricula for English
and for natural sciences did not mention visual elements at all. The latter surprised us in particular,
10/NL
considering the importance of diagrams, visualisations and technical drawings in subjects such as
biology, chemistry, physics and technology.
Figure 10. Visual elements of disciplinary literacies in 5 subject curricula combined
Subject-specific realia
Subject-specific realia were present in under 7% of DL mentions, mostly in relation to the social
sciences. There, the emphasis was on “sources” in general,3 although specific equipment, such as
atlases and maps, were also mentioned. The learner’s “own environment as a source and object of
research” was considered by our subject specialist to also constitute realia in the field of social
science. The only other mentions of subject-specific realia in the other subject domains were
calculation equipment in mathematics, and a “technical product” in the natural sciences curriculum.
The language subjects did not address this area at all.
Figure 11. Subject-specific realia in 5 subject curricula combined
Other
The category ‘Other’ contains a rather broad range of DL mentions that do not - in our view - fit in
any of the other categories (see Figure 12). These accounted for a substantial proportion (20%) of
the occurrences we identified, and thus warrant further consideration.
The most prominent themes that emerged within the ‘Other’ category are presented in Table 5.
The only multilingual element was the mention of “the influence of English on the Dutch language”,
in the curriculum for English. The language curricula also did not refer to intercultural
communication or linguistic variety, nor did they mention any subject-specific areas of content.
These are aspects of the Dutch and English curricula we expect to change considerably in the
upcoming curriculum renewal.
3
Note that the same mentions of sources also appear in the category “genres”. We considered both categories
to be fitting in this case.
11/NL
Figure 12. ‘Other’ elements relevant to disciplinary literacies in 5 subject curricula combined
As a future step, we would suggest comparing the mentions in the ‘Other’ category among the
national teams. It is possible that other teams have assigned similar items to other categories, which
could have implications for our understanding of those categories and affect the outcomes of future
analyses. Alternatively, some of the sub-themes in the ‘other’ category may indicate other aspects of
disciplinary literacies that are not addressed in the current conceptualisation.
Theme
Examples
Subjects
Crosscurricular
connections
“studying English texts that tie in with the content of and are used in
other curriculum areas”
“skills that apply to both subjects (reading and listening strategies
[...])” in English and Dutch
English
“Proficiency in the Dutch language is indispensable when acquiring
content and skills in all learning areas”
“using texts and contexts from other domains in Dutch language
education and consciously working on language education in
education in other domains”
Dutch
Subjectspecific
culture /
thinking
“build up a repertoire of ready knowledge, insights, routines and
attitudes”
Maths
“acquiring a critical and investigative attitude”
“make a technical product in a systematic manner”
Natural
science
Other aspects
of language
learning and
language
using
“listening and understanding English”
“use strategies to expand his English vocabulary”
English
“drawing up speaking and writing plans for communicative actions”
“learns to adhere to conventions (spelling, grammatically correct
sentences, word use) and learns to see the importance of those
conventions”
“use strategies to expand his vocabulary”
“The core of the subject consists of acquiring, processing (OTH) and
presenting information (CV)”
Dutch
“understand the mathematical language of others”
Maths
12/NL
Explicit
mention of
subjectspecific
literacy /
language
“develop their skills in the 'language of mathematics' and become
increasingly 'mathematically literate and numerate'”
Maths
Social/Global
significance of
subject
“learns what role English plays in different types of international
contacts”
English
“to conduct a simple investigation into a current social phenomenon”
“learns about similarities, differences and changes in culture and
philosophy of life in the Netherlands”
“learns to see the significance for society of respect for each other's
views and ways of life”
“learns to act respectfully when dealing with sexuality and diversity
within society, including sexual diversity”
Social
sciences
“develop the ability to recognize, interpret and use mathematicsrelated information in different situations in their current and future
lives”
Maths
Table 5. Themes emerging in the ‘Other’ category
General conclusions
On the whole, we noted that there was generally little attention for disciplinary literacies. It struck us
that Mathematics was by far the strongest in this respect, with CDFs playing a prominent role in the
characteristics and objectives, and subject-specific literacy being referred to explicitly as a
characteristic of the subject. We also saw that other elements from the codebook (e.g. digital
literacy) were positioned alongside the explicitly linguistic elements, suggesting a similar
understanding of disciplinary literacies to that employed in the COST CLIL NetLE Action (Nikula et al,
2024).
Beyond the strong example of mathematics, our general impression is that ‘content’ subjects
(natural and social sciences) are characterised as focusing on content-learning, and ‘language’
subjects (Dutch and English) as focusing on development of general communicative skills, unrelated
to subject-specific content (although Dutch does briefly mention cross-curricular applications).
Where the language curricula (mostly English) do mention content in the form of literature, it is
addressed without mention of related disciplinary literacies. It could be valuable for all subjects to
follow the example of Mathematics in integrating language and content objectives, or even for
language and content subjects to learn from each other in general.
As explained in Sections 2 and 3, there is no official national curriculum in the Netherlands in terms
of content or pedagogy, based on the belief that teachers and schools should be allowed the
professional freedom to approach their subject as they see fit. The characteristics and core
objectives analysed here are a general framework used to guide and direct that process in a
direction that will align with the learning outcomes as stipulated in the final examinations. This can
lead to the objectives being broad and non-specific. However, we do not think that this fully explains
the lack of attention to disciplinary literacies for the majority of subjects. Indeed, it would arguably
be more straightforward to focus on subject-specific (communicative) skills and approaches and
allow teachers to select relevant content through which to apply them, as in the International
Baccalaureate.
13/NL
Finally, it is important to note that this analysis took place just as new curriculum goals are about to
be published (in the course of 2024). We would be very interested to repeat this exercise with the
new curriculum, once it has been finalised. We hope that it will include more attention to
disciplinary literacies than the old curriculum, including attention for multilingual awareness and
practices.
14/NL
Poland National Report
1. Team & Process
The five members of the Polish National Curriculum Analysis Team are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. The Italian National Curriculum Analysis Team
Members & Affiliation
Interest in COST and Disciplinary
Discourse
Barbara Muszyńska*
University of Lower Silesia
(Wrocław)
Agnieszka Borowiak
University of Humanities
and Economics in Lodz
(Łódź)
Joanna Leek
University of Lodz (Łódź)
Language Specialist and content and language
curricula designer: Expertise in CLIL
implementation; PhD in bilingual curricula
evaluation (Córdoba, Spain); Formerly
Primary School EFL Teacher;
Language Specialist: teacher trainer and
researcher; expertise in the methodology of
teaching foreign languages and CLIL
implementation; PhD in linguistics;
experience in teaching English across all
levels;
Language Specialist: Upper secondary
bilingual curriculum specialist,
Translanguaging within International
curriculum. Specializes in implementing
translanguaging within international
curricula; formerly CLIL teacher: experience
in integrating content and language learning
methodologies.
*POLAND National Curriculum TEAM LEADER
The PL-TEAM was coordinated by Barbara Muszyńska who, in contact with the Polish team located the National Ministry of Education curriculum
documents. The national curricula are available online in open access. All of the team members chose which subject curricula they would translate into
English and analyze. The DeepL tool was used for translations, which were later reread by the team members responsible for the curricula analysis. Every
team member was responsible for the initial analysis of the chosen curricula. After this process was completed, the analyzed documents were reread by
other team members and suggestions made. The group met online regularly to discuss any discrepancies and make joint decisions.
1/PL
2. National School System
Figure 1 is a schematic illustration of how the Polish school system is organized from preschool into tertiarylevel instruction.
Figure 1. Organization of the Polish school system
The Polish school system consists of pre-school education 0-3, which is optional. Compulsory education
starts at the age of 5 (last year of kindergarten), which is called ‘Grade 0’. This year can be offered by
kindergartens or primary schools. Compulsory education ends in secondary school at the age of 18.
Students aged 14 can choose three educational paths, two of which end with A-Levels, the secondary school
one and the technical one. The third one, Professional training (vocational) does not end in A-Levels. It is a
preparation for a specific profession. The school system in Poland is the same throughout the country.
In Poland, bilingual education is possible in year 7 and 8 of the primary school and in secondary school, in all
school types. The government decides on what subjects can be taught in a foreign language in bilingual
schools. The organization of the bilingual programme, including its curriculum, is up to the schools. There
are no text books, and no educational materials for bilingual schools. There are also IB schools in Poland,
they have their own programme and at the end of which students can take an IB exam. However, these can
be organized only by secondary schools.
2/PL
3. The Survey
Figure 2A illustrates which Polish curricular documents were translated into English and Figure 2B illustrates
which of these were analyzed with the coding system described in Section 1.
Figure 2A. Polish
curricular
documents which
were translated
into English.
Figure 2B.
Curricular
documents which
were surveyed for
mentions of
productive
disciplinary
literacies, as
described in Section
1.
Original L1 Documents can be found in (LINK TO FOLDER ), the English translation of these documents can be
found in (LINKLINK TO FOLDER) and the analyzed documents can be found in (LINK TO FOLDER).
4. Survey Results: Data, analysis, findings & reflections
The following data consists of the entire curricula chosen for the analysis, as shown above.
The references to command verbs (CV), genres (GG), productive use of language (PL), digital literacy (DD),
visual elements (VV), subject-specific realia (TT) and other (OTH) were analyzed in all of the documents.
The secondary school level curricula mirror the structure of the upper primary ones.
3/PL
Overall, the findings indicate that although the development of academic language and disciplinary literacies
is not explicitly stated as a goal in any of the curricula, these curricula indirectly include elements that could
contribute to building these skills alongside content learning. However, the document does not explicitly
mention "the mastery of disciplinary discourse." There is also no mention of bi/multi/translingual practices
in any of the documents analyzed.
There is evidence of “focus on vocabulary” rather than “focus on discourse”. This illustrates that the
curriculum writers have a “language” perspective on learning, not a “literacy” perspective. What’s more, all
of the curricula analyzed are dominated by receptive rather than productive language skills and language
use. In general, there is no mention of how to use language to create meaning or strategies to develop
students’ reading and writing skills in the context of subject content learning. There are no differences made
between spoken and written language use. Some parts of the curricula mention the development of team
work and thinking skills but no systematic evidence in the area of sense-making (Biesta et al. 2015).
There’s very little mention of students’ ability to use the subject specific language in different
situations/contexts, etc. and the parts of the curricula which mention this are written in general terms.
There’s no critical dimension of DL mentioned in the documents, nor is there mention of any text analysis,
etc.. There is no explicit mention of how language plays a role in students’ ability to attain content-conceptrelated notions. There’s no mention of any genres or students’ awareness of genres.
The curricula analyzed place strong emphasis on content knowledge, scientific concepts, and skills related to
content knowledge. They outline specific topics, processes, and phenomena that students should learn,
understand, and explain. All of the curricula prioritize vocabulary acquisition over developing disciplinary
discourse practices or genres specific to subject content learning. They place great emphasis on receptive
skills, such as observation, recognition of structures and processes, and interpreting diagrams,
microphotographs, and other visual representations. The focus is primarily on content knowledge, thinking
skills, and scientific inquiry methods, with limited attention given to productive language use or specific text
types and genres related to content learning. Specific guidance on building students' disciplinary literacies is
lacking.
Table 1 below presents the break-up of different categories based on the use of coding in different subjects
in the analyzed curricula.
CV
GG
PL
DD
VV
PRIMARY
geography
86
0
29
25
66
history
170
0
43
13
18
chemistry
68
0
49
0
3
biology
132
3
26
3
3
SECONDARY
geography
331
4
389
72
28
history
501
0
57
14
14
chemistry
264
0
72
10
15
biology
115
0
55
2
2
Figure 1. Break-up of disciplinary literacy types across different subjects.
4/PL
TT
OTH
TOTAL
116
4
10
1
71
95
0
1
393
346
130
169
86
0
18
8
92
37
1
1
1002
623
380
183
Table 2 below provides the overall number of coded instances of productive DLs across the analyzed
curricula at two educational levels.
CV
GG
PL
DD
VV
TT
primary
456
3
147
41
90
131
secondary 1211
4
573
98
59
112
TOTAL
1667
7
720
139
149
243
Table 2. Coded instances of productive disciplinary literacies according to educational level.
OTH
167
131
298
As shown above, the Polish curricula are dominated by having students perform verbal actions based on
thinking skills (CV). The reference to genres is practically nonexistent in all of the analyzed documents.
When it comes to subject-specific realia (TT) most of the occurrences can be found in geography and
chemistry. The visual elements (VV) are mostly highlighted in the geography curricula on both educational
levels.
The documents extensively utilize command verbs. In this area, verbs belonging to the LOTS category
prevail. This may indicate that teachers focus more on activities which include basic thinking skills. The main
aim may be to gather information rather than to process it (HOTS). There is a lot of emphasis on “to learn
about..:”. This phrase indicates a focus on acquiring knowledge rather than deeply processing or applying it.
The curriculum draws teachers’ attention towards thinking skills in students, e.g. naming, describing,
recognizing (CV), and the same verbs are used throughout the document (LOTS). While in the area of
language production only two verbs are mentioned: listing and giving examples (PL). This suggests a narrow
scope for expressing and developing ideas.
In contrast with history and geography, curricula for biology or chemistry place a strong emphasis on
developing practical skills, conducting experiments, and applying theoretical knowledge to problem-solving.
This involves CDFs such as "applying," "demonstrating," "testing," and "experimenting," which are pivotal in
scientific learning. The frequent use of command verbs and productive language verbs provides clear
guidance on the expected cognitive processes and practical abilities students should acquire. However, as
with the other curricula analyzed, they lack explicit mention of developing disciplinary literacies or academic
language proficiency. This refers to specific ways of reading, writing, communicating that are unique to the
given discipline. There is no reference to specific genres, text types, or strategies for enhancing students'
reading, writing, or communication skills within the context of chemistry. There is a focus on developing
skills such as analyzing information, drawing conclusions, making hypotheses, interpreting results, and
formulating generalizations, which require strong language and literacy skills. The curricula mention the use
of information and communication technologies (ICT) for acquiring and processing information, which may
involve reading, writing, and comprehending digital resources. However, there is a need for more detailed
guidance on how ICT can be integrated to support cognitive functions like researching, analysing, and
presenting scientific information. The digital dimension (DD) and visual elements (VV) are mentioned only
briefly, without detailed guidance on their integration or creation. While the curriculum covers essential
content knowledge and practical skills, it does not explicitly address the development of disciplinary
literacies or the mastery of disciplinary discourse.
In sum, the analyzed Polish curricula show a strong emphasis on basic thinking skills (LOTS) and verbal
actions (CV), emphasizing information acquisition over deep processing (HOTS). There is little emphasis on
how language can be used to create meaning or develop reading and writing skills within subject learning.
The focus appears to be primarily on content acquisition and application rather than on fostering students'
ability to engage with and communicate disciplinary knowledge effectively through various modes and
genres.
5/PL
SPAIN (Madrid) - Report
SP(MAD)_CURR_BIOGEO_lowersec_12-15_SP(MAD)
1. Team
Table 1. The Madrid (Spain) Curriculum Analysis Team
Members & AffiliaKon
Interest in COST and
Disciplinary Discourse
Ana Llinares (Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid)
Applied Linguist:
Exper>se in CLIL.
COST: Vice-Chair,
member of WG1, 2
and 3
Applied Linguist:
Exper>se in EFL, CLIL,
EMI.
COST: member of WG1
Tom Morton
(Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid)
2. NaKonal and Regional School Systems
The Spanish school system consists of pre-school educa>on (Educación Infan>l) from ages 0-6,
which is op>onal. Compulsory educa>on starts at age 6 with primary school (Educación
Primaria) un>l age 12. This is followed by four years of compulsory secondary educa>on
(Educación Secundaria Obligatoria) un>l age 16. Students can then pursue an op>onal two-year
Bachillerato (high school) program, which prepares them for university studies, or enrol in
voca>onal training (Formación Profesional) for specific careers. Throughout the system, there
are both public and private school op>ons available. The 17 Autonomous Communi>es in Spain
have responsibility for Educa>on although they each follow this general system. There are
regional differences in the curricula for specific subjects. Thus, this report focuses only on the
subject of Biology and Geology in the curriculum for lower-secondary in the Comunidad de
Madrid (years 7-10).
In the Comunidad de Madrid, around half of the state primary and secondary schools follow a
bilingual programme, where up to 50% of the curriculum is taught through a foreign language
(mostly English). At secondary level, there are two bilingual streams, one with a higher
exposure to bilingual educa>on (“Sección”) and one with lower exposure (“Programa”).
Students on entering secondary bilingual schools are assigned to one of these streams based
on the results of an English test (usually the Cambridge KET or PET). Students in bilingual
streams follow the same curricula as their non-bilingual counterparts but in a foreign language
(mostly English). That is, there is no separate curriculum for subjects taught in English. The
subject of Biology and Geology is taught in the foreign language in the high-exposure stream
and in the first language (Spanish) in the low-exposure stream. This subject is taught in years 7,
9 and 10, corresponding to the 1st, 3rd and 4th years of Compulsory Secondary Educa>on (1º
ESO, 3º ESO y 4º ESO).
1/ES (Madrid)
3. The Survey
The survey was conducted on the Comunidad de Madrid curriculum for lower-secondary in the
subject of Biology and Geology. Figure 1. below shows the context with the specific age group
involved.
Fig 1. Context for the survey
4. Survey Results: Data, analysis, findings & reflecKons
The survey analysed a total of 6,700 words corresponding to the introduc>on to the curriculum
document for biology and geology in lower secondary (pages 9 and 10) as well as the specific
curriculum for biology and geology for years 7, 9 and 10 (1º, 3º and 4º ESO).
Regarding the introduc>on, the text refers to “Alfabe>zación ciendfica” (Scien>fic literacy)
twice in the first two paragraphs of the curriculum for biology and geology. This can be
interpreted as a declara>on of intent where this approach is considered key.
We analysed the references to command verbs (CV), genres (GG), produc>ve use of language
(PL), digital literacy (DD), visual elements (VV), subject-specific realia (TT) and other (OTH) in
the curriculum.
For the first category we analysed the presence of Cogni>ve Discourse Func>ons (DaltonPuffer, 2013) in the curriculum, not only those realised through performa>ve verbs. In other
words, we also coded nominalisa>ons (e.g. Descrip(on as well as Describe). The total number
of references to literacy features (following the agreed descriptors) were 103
See table.
106./106?
See table.
That represents 15,37 instances per 1000 words.
Table 2 shows the distribu>on of these categories and their frequency per 1000 words:
CV
41
GG
0
PL
11
DD
8
VV
6
TT
8
Number of
instances
Instances
6.1
0
1.64
1.19
0.89
1.19
per 1000
words
Table 2. Frequency of the categories represen>ng types of disciplinary literacy/ies
2/ES (Madrid)
OTH
32
4.77
The next sec>ons focus specifically on each type of literacy:
4.1. Command verbs or CDFs, genres and other instances of produc>ve language
In the analysis of command verbs (CV) we not only coded instances realised through verbs but
any references to the students’ produc>on of Cogni>ve Discourse Func>ons. Table 3 shows the
distribu>on of the 7 CDFS (Dalton-Puffer, 2013; Evnitskaya & Dalton-Puffer, 2023):
CDFS
Define Describe Report Categorise Explain Evaluate Explore TOTAL
Number
1
0
2
4
8
16
10
41
percentage 2.4%
0
4.8%
9.7%
19.5% 39%
24.3%
100%
Table 3. Frequency of CDFs
The distribu>on of the CDFs that are expected to be addressed by biology and geology students
in lower-secondary educa>on shows higher percentages in high-order types of CDFs such as
Explore and Evaluate. Unexpectedly, perhaps, the presence of Describe and Define is either
non-existent or very low. The presence of Explain and Categorise as the third and fourth most
frequent CDFs aligns with the way in which disciplinary knowledge is presented in biology and
geology, where explana>ons and classifica>ons are key. In the case of schools par>cipa>ng in
the Comunidad de Madrid bilingual programme, where students study biology and geology in
English (L2) in the high-exposure strand and in Spanish (L1) in the low-exposure strand, a
recent study by Evnitskaya & Llinares (2022) on classroom interac>on in two groups from
different strands taught by the same teacher, showed that the CDF Evaluate was frequent but
only in the high-exposure group, not in the low-exposure one. In other words, the curriculum
seems to be applied differently (at least, by this teacher) in the different groups, where the
high-exposure students were exposed to a more evalua>ve approach to content, in spite of the
challenge of being taught in the L2, in contrast with the focus on more factual CDFs in the
lower--exposure group, where the language of instruc>on was students’ L1 (Spanish).
Interes>ngly, Describe was one of the most frequent CDFs in both groups, which contrasts with
the absence of this CDF in the curriculum analysed (see Table 3), at least from the point of view
of students’ produc>on. In other words, although the curriculum gives relevance to higherorder thinking CDFs (Evaluate and Explore), teachers may not necessarily address scien>fic
content in that way, or they may do it differently depending on the group. It must be taken into
account that teachers tended to perceive the students in the high-exposure strand not only
beoer at English but in their general academic competence (Hidalgo McCabe, 2022).
We did not find any reference to genres (GG) in the curriculum, which aligns with DaltonPuffer’s (2013) jus>fica>on of developing the CDF model, as teachers at secondary school level
in the Austrian context analysed seem to work with defini(ons, explana(ons or evalua(ons,
etc. in the classroom, but they did not work with staged texts or genres. The same applies to
the Spanish lower-secondary school curriculum, at least in the subject of biology and geology.
Regarding other uses of produc>ve language (PL), 5 of the 11 instances referred to “posing
ques>ons”, and from the context it is assumed that this would involve oral produc>on. The
next most frequent type was “proposing” (3 instances) in which students are expected to use
language produc>vely to propose ac>ons such as healthy habits. Other references (1 each) to
language produc>on referred to “group discussion”, “crea>ng a product”, and “analysis of
concepts”.
3/ES (Madrid)
4.2. Digital literacy, visual elements and subject-specific realia
Digital literacy (DD), visual elements (VV), subject-specific realia (TT) were included in the
curriculum. Digital literacy had 8 men>ons, and these were variously referred to, at quite a
general level, as the use of digital resources (3), virtual spaces (2), technological tools (2), and
digital content (1). As for visual elements (VV), the 6 men>ons were distributed among video,
models, diagrams, graphs, tables and symbols. Subject-specific realia (TT) were men>oned in
general terms with references to “instruments” and “tools” (3), more specific items such as
microscope (1), and references to models and experiments, and use of spaces such as labs (1
each).
4.3. Other types of literacy
Many references to literacy were not clearly related to produc>on and, thus, they were
classified as “Other”. For example, “The importance of organ dona>on will be studied” does
not specifically relate to produc>on. Although it is implicit that the students will evaluate the
content (“importance”) it is not clear if they will do it produc>vely. Another example is “Study
of the func>oning and anatomy of the diges>ve and other systems”, where the students would
be expected to explain, categorize and describe, but again it is not clear if they will produce
these CDFs or read about them. The curriculum was full of references related to “analysing”
and “problem solving” but these were not explicitly related to produc>on.
A whole sec>on (2.2) was dedicated to reading. Although this is not a “produc>ve”
skill, it is an essen>al component of disciplinary literacy. This can be seen in criteria D
and E, in which there is men>on of naviga>ng and extrac>ng informa>on, which can
also be seen as important skills in dealing with texts. Also, the use of technological
tools, while involving disciplinary literacy skills, does not necessarily imply language
produc>on.
References
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cogni>ve discourse func>ons for conceptualising
content-language integra>on in CLIL and mul>lingual educa>on. European Journal of Applied
Linguis(cs, 1(2), 216-253.
Evnitskaya, N., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2023). Cogni>ve discourse func>ons in CLIL classrooms:
Elici>ng and analysing students’ oral categoriza>ons in science and history. Interna(onal
Journal of Bilingual Educa(on and Bilingualism, 26(3), 311-330.
Evnitskaya, N., & Llinares, A. (2022). (In) equity in CLIL programs? Classroom interac>on and
the development of higher order thinking skills across bilingual strands. AILA Review, 35(2),
227-249.
Hidalgo-McCabe, E. (2022). Language tes>ng and the role of CLIL exposure in construc>ng
student profiles: Stakeholders’ views on streaming in the transi>on from primary to secondary
educa>on. AILA Review, 35(2), 250-274.
4/ES (Madrid)
2.5. SUMMARY OVERVIEW TASK-1: SURVEY OF CURRICULAR
DOCUMENTS
COST Action 21114 “CLILNetLE: CLIL Network for Languages in Education”
recognizes that the explicit teaching of academic language and discipline-specific discourse
is crucial for not only successful learning while in school but also facilitates school-leavers’
subsequent entry into and success in chosen professions and/or studies. The survey
question we sought to answer is, therefore, “do official national/regional curricular
documents make explicit to teachers that they must build their students’ academic
language and discipline-specific literacy/ies?” The Codebook and Survey Template
made it possible for 28 researchers from ITC and non-ITC countries to conduct exploratory
surveys of their respective curricular documents, and working together, we collectively pored
through a corpus totalling ca. 404,300 words to codify for “mentions of productive disciplinary
literacy/ies”.
It should be noted that we are still in in the early stages of scrutinizing and analysing the
corpus of the national curricula which were surveyed and reported on in the eight chapters of
the previous section. This concluding section only wishes to briefly highlight three points: (1)
the answer to the survey-question delineated above is “not enough”; (2) the survey tool
requires some collaborative polishing; however, in its current state, it already stimulates
reflections and conversations around productive DL; (3) concrete next steps are crucial for
tweaking future curricular documents so they explicitly foreground the need to build students’
productive DL skills. Below, excerpts from the National/Regional Reports of Section 2.4 are
presented to address these three points: source country/region quoted is indicated in
brackets.
1. So, “do official national/regional curricular documents make explicit to teachers that they
must build their students’ academic language and discipline-specific literacy/ies?” (survey
question). The short answer seems to be: Not always, and not enough, sometimes
delimiting “language” to only “vocabulary” or “terminology”, and often without
concrete suggestions:
•
It is true that schematic cross-references are made in each of the subject curricula to
the Eight General Didactic Principles of the general part (two of them being digital
education and language education), as this is a stipulation of the National Curriculum
as a whole. However, these references are stated in a very summary fashion and
specifications as to what these principles mean in the context of the individual subject
are missing. It looks as if the assumption were that subject teachers have deep
knowledge and awareness of the language requirements of their subject and so can
smoothly implement the principles of language education in their pedagogical actions
without any guidelines being formulated in their subject’s curriculum. (AT)
•
The National Curriculum for Biology mentions the word “languages” 19 times with
examples such as:
explains clearly and accurately, orally or in writing, the meaning of new terms (words,
concepts) using appropriate language and vocabulary;
-
29/D7
-
-
In order to analyse and evaluate the results during the study of phenomena and laws
in the natural sciences, the student must develop communication skills and use
the language and terminology of science correctly;
In addition, in presenting explanations or clarifying his/her solutions, he/she will be
aware of the importance of correct use of language and terminology in science
and technology. (AL)
•
Beyond the strong example of mathematics, our general impression is that ‘content’
subjects (natural and social sciences) are characterised as focusing on contentlearning, and ‘language’ subjects (Dutch and English) as focusing on development of
general communicative skills, unrelated to subject-specific content (although Dutch
does briefly mention cross-curricular applications). Where the language curricula
(mostly English) do mention content in the form of literature, it is addressed without
mention of related disciplinary literacies. It could be valuable for all subjects to follow
the example of Mathematics in integrating language and content objectives, or even
for language and content subjects to learn from each other in general. (NL)
•
The curricula analysed place strong emphasis on content knowledge, scientific
concepts, and skills related to content knowledge. They outline specific topics,
processes, and phenomena that students should learn, understand, and explain. All
of the curricula prioritize vocabulary acquisition over developing disciplinary
discourse practices or genres specific to subject content learning… The focus is
primarily on content knowledge, thinking skills, and scientific inquiry methods, with
limited attention given to productive language use or specific text types and genres
related to content learning. Specific guidance on building students' disciplinary
literacies is lacking. (PL)
2. The survey tool was challenging, prompting researchers to collaboratively delve
into and discuss issues surrounding DL, thereby establishing a heightened and
sometimes new level of interest in the curricular document(s) underlying the instructional
system they are part of:
•
Throughout the National Curricula analysis process, both team members worked
together in a collaborative manner. All the analyses presented in the text in the
chapters and the summary conclusions of the curriculum analysis are the result of a
collaborative process of sharing observations and insights. (LT)
•
Despite the fact that the task was interesting and valuable, some challenges were
faced during its completion, and it also sparked numerous questions and prompted
extensive reflection. The coding process involved some challenges that had to do, for
example, with the fact that it was not always straightforward to differentiate between
different categories provided in the coding key. Agreement was reached by shared
discussion between the researchers and joint decisions […] Considering the long
experience in teaching and the research interest in EFL, and the methods of teaching
and learning, working with the national curriculum was not a new task. What was new
in fact was the focus on disciplinary literacies and how the curriculum […] suggests
30/D7
the development of disciplinary literacies. The detailed analysis on command verbs,
students’ productive use of language, genre types, digital literacy elements, subject
specific realia and visual elements, made me reflect on what the curricula offers and
how it helps the academic achievements of students. (AL)
•
The coding process involved some challenges that had to do, for example, with the
fact that it was not always straightforward to differentiate between different categories
provided in the coding key. Agreement was reached by shared discussion among
coders and joint decisions, but we are aware that in other country teams decisions
might have been taken differently - cross-country joint reflection is therefore needed
as an important step for refining the coding instrument. (FI)
•
This was also part of the challenge, as the language used in the different curricula
was not always comparable. Furthermore, the command verbs used in the curricula,
while identified by subject experts as denoting CDFs, were not always easily aligned
with the definitions and examples of CDFs in the literature and the coding scheme.
For example, on several occasions we encountered command verbs equating to a
notion of ‘drawing connections’, but we did not see an obvious place for ‘connect’ in
the list of CDFs provided. We decided to classify these examples as CDF-categorise.
(NL)
•
Many references to literacy were not clearly related to production and, thus, they
were classified as “Other”. For example, “[t]he importance of organ donation will be
studied” does not specifically relate to production. Although it is implicit that the
students will evaluate the content (“importance”), it is not clear if they will do it
productively. Another example is “[s]tudy of the functioning and anatomy of the
digestive and other systems”, where the students would be expected to explain,
categorize and describe, but again it is not clear if they will produce these CDFs or
read about them. The curriculum was full of references related to “analysing” and
“problem solving” but these were not explicitly related to production. (ES-Madrid);
Personal communication further revealed that “we [the ES-Madrid team] spent so
much time discussing how to classify these instances…”
3. Explicit and concrete next steps are crucial: Official curricular documents serve to
guide teachers’ classroom practice and publishers’ choice of content. Since the development
of disciplinary literacy/ies seems to be somewhat akin to foreign language learning, we
should identify how future curricular documents might be tweaked to make explicit the fact
that students need explicit and concrete instruction for building productive DL skills:
•
Teacher education programmes in Austria may include some general input on
language in education….but the subject-specific PCK, pedagogical training etc. do
not systematically address the role of language for the learning of specific subject
A/B/C….Thus, a rehaul of the Austrian national curriculum would need to take place
in order to inscribe the Eight General Didactic Principles (Principle 7: “Languagesensitive subject teaching takes place in all subjects”; Principle 2: “Teachers offer
digitally enhanced instruction and use innovative teaching methods”) into each
31/D7
subject curriculum. Such concretization and explicitness would be necessary in order
to make an implementation of language-sensitive subject teaching more likely. If
language and more generally literacy-sensitive teaching were made explicit and
linked to subject specific learning goals in each of the subject-curricula, the officially
commissioned teaching materials and textbooks would have to adapt and adopt
explicit literacy elements. (AT)
•
Below (Figure 9A) is a segment of the curriculum which clearly states that, at the end
of their studies, students should be able to use Italian to express themselves “with
clarity and propriety”, adapting to the circumstance at hand (GG) to achieve various
productive communicative objectives (PL, CV). While this excerpt already makes
explicit reference to students’ ability to use language effectively, the modified excerpt
(Figure 9B) illustrates how, with only four more words, the curriculum could make even
more explicit the need to build students’ productive language skills. (IT).
Figure 9. Rewording curricular documents towards disciplinary literacy/ies: An example
An excerpt from the Italian curriculum surveyed, illustrating instances of productive
disciplinary literacy/ies as they appeared within the document and coded as per the
Codebook (A) and how the same indications could be reworded so to draw attention to the
need to explicitly cultivate students’ ability to use language to communicate their knowledge
and thinking in age- and discipline-appropriate ways (suggested modifications highlighted in
red).
•
The current Biology curriculum derives from 2017 and the History curriculum from
2019. The main difference between these curricula and the previous one is that now
the curriculum focuses on competences and learning outcomes rather than objectives.
The curriculum has not been renewed ever since but considering that the usual cycle
for renewing the entire curriculum in most countries is around 10 years, we are hoping
that the new version of the curriculum would have more emphasis in the disciplinary
literacy elements as well as the language expected by the students to achieve
academic proficiency in all subjects. (AL)
32/D7
•
Finally, it is important to note that this analysis took place just as new curriculum goals
are about to be published (in the course of 2024). We would be very interested to
repeat this exercise with the new curriculum, once it has been finalised. (NL)
Participation in this exploratory survey has piqued the interest of WG3 Researcher who were
involved, resulting in some transnational collaborations between young researchers from ITC
countries who wish to polish the survey tools, revisit the preliminary results, and conduct
additional surveys, which they hope will garner results that will also raise the interest of
curriculum writers, education boards, publishers, and teachers.
33/D7
SECTION 3. TEACHERS’ EXPECTATIONS OF DISCIPILNARY
LITERACIES (TASK-2)
3.1. INTRODUCTION TO TASK-2
While TASK-1 sought to “overview curricular demands of bi/multilingual disciplinary
literacies” by surveying official curricular documents for mentions of productive disciplinary
literacies, TASK-2 intended to undertake the same overview by surveying teachers’
expectations of students’ productive disciplinary discourse, i.e. using what teachers expect
from students as a proxy for gauging “curricular demands of disciplinary and academic
literacies” (MoU). However, as explained in the Introduction, “disciplinary literacy/ies” is often
elusive, especially for subject-specialists and especially when it regards productive
disciplinary discourse, i.e. the ability to communicate knowledge of discipline-specific notions
accurately, using discipline-accepted ways of “languaging”. Indeed, as shown in Figure 2 in
the Introduction, imprecise discourse regarding a given topic leads one to suspect an
imprecise understanding of that topic.
The challenge, however, is that, while subject-specialists typically have no problem listing
the discipline-specific topics they would like their students to learn and would also not
struggle to identify which text among many explains the concepts through more accurate
and discipline-appropriate ways, subject-specialists do not feel that they are in the position to
teach the language, i.e. the disciplinary-discourse, that they themselves expect from their
students. In fact, when presented with poorly written texts produced by their students,
subject-specialists often believe that “this is a language problem and language is not my
business” (Smit & Dafouz, 2012). Therefore, as mentioned in Section 1.2, directly asking
most subject-specialists to delineate their expectations of students’ discipline-specific
literacy/ies, and especially “disciplinary discourse”, risks the production of unreliable
information. At the same time, we wished to gain insight into teachers’ expectation(s) of
students’ discipline-specific literacy/ies, and in particular, we aimed to examine the following
question: “What kind of language and/or discourse features do teachers expect their
students to produce when asked to verbalize discipline-specific notions learnt?”.
To gain insight into the language and discourse features teachers expect students to
produce when communicating on discipline-specific or academic topics, it was necessary to
develop a survey protocol which all researchers in WG3 could use to “Survey Teachers’
Expectations of Disciplinary Literacy/ies” across all grade levels and Key Subjects specified
in Table 3, and within all members’ respective educational realities. The section below briefly
describes two research tools developed through this Action. The first is a protocol for eliciting
teachers’ expectations of disciplinary discourse without needing to ask them to do so
explicitly, thereby generating a corpus on “teachers’ expectations of students’ writings”. The
second is a survey protocol which allowed WG3 Researchers to then analyse the
occurrence of cognitive discourse functions (CDFs) within these elicited texts, thereby
providing us insight into the types of CDFs teachers expect their students to adopt when
making meaning and showing understanding. Such an analysis might then also shed light on
how teachers at various levels and in different subjects expect their learners to realize these
CDFs; i.e. what linguistic features are used to verbalize one’s cognitive engagement with
subject-specific content. The ability to clearly delineate the features of language and
34/D7
disciplinary discourse which teachers implicitly expect from their students is the first step
towards helping teachers design instruction which explicitly builds their students’ academic
and disciplinary discourse skills. As explained above, this part of the survey (Part-2; TASK-2)
allowed us to gain insight into the discourse and language features that primary, lowersecondary, upper-secondary as well as first-year tertiary-level instructors expected from their
students, thereby meeting the objective of “[addressing] the transition across educational
levels (primary-secondary-tertiary education)” (MoU, p.18).
3.2. METHODOLOGY
Details of the “Teachers’ Expectations Elicitation Protocol” are described in the Appendix
(TOOL-2), as are those of the “CDF-Based Coding & Analysis Guide” used for analyzing and
reflecting on these Teachers’ Expectations (TOOL-3).
3.2.1. PROCESS DESIGN: PROTOCOL FOR ELICITING TEACHERS’
EXPECTATIONS
In the first phase of TASK-2, WG3 Researchers used the Teachers’ Expectations Elicitation
Protocol to gain insight into the type of disciplinary discourse they expect from their students,
without, however, asking teachers for their expectations directly, an approach which has
been explained earlier. In brief, the process was as follows (for details, see Appendix 1,
TOOL-2):
1. WG3 Members contacted potential teacher-contributors who were teaching at any
level from primary to first-year tertiary.
2. These teacher-contributors could be from any of the “Key Action Subjects” delineated
in Table 3, i.e. Mathematics, Science, History, L1 and First-FL, as well as subjects
falling within these very general academic fields.
3. Teacher-contributors were asked to find five or more non-textual semiotic elements
(e.g. graphs, images, authentic texts, etc.) about a topic of their choice which they
could imagine using at an exam to evaluate their students‘ understanding of said
topic.
4. Each teacher-contributor was then asked to generate, in writing, a text which they
would expect a “good student” to produce if such a semiotic element were indeed
used to evaluate this student’s understanding of the topic associated with the
semiotic. Different criteria regarding text length were used, depending on the agegroup of learners the respective teacher-contributor teaches.
3.2.2. INSTRUMENT OF ANALYSIS: CDF-BASED CODING & ANALYSIS TOOL
Texts generated through the Teachers’ Expectations Elicitation Protocol were then analyzed
to understand the type of language and discourse features teachers expect their students to
produce to make-meaning and show understanding. For this, two WG3 Researchers, Silvia
Minardi (IT: herein SM-IT) and Silvia Rieder-Marschallinger (AT: herein SRM-AT), who are
experienced with using Cognitive Discourse Functions (Bauer-Marschallinger, 2022; Minardi,
2020) to delineate instances and evolution of communicative functions within complex texts,
35/D7
were invited to lead the analyses. SM-IT and SRM-AT developed the CDF-Based Coding &
Analysis Tool presented in the Appendix (TOOL-3).
In short, this CDF-Coding & Analysis Tool allows researchers to systematically identify the
communicative function of sentences and/or phrases as they appear in complex text or
discourse (Dalton-Puffer, 2013; 2016; Dalton-Puffer & Bauer-Marschallinger, 2019). While
CDF-based coding and analyses have been used to understand the communicative
functions in textbooks and students’ work (see chapters in Hüttner & Dalton-Puffer, 2024), it
has not, to date, been used to delineate the types of communicative functions which
teachers expect of their students. With the corpus of text collected through the
aforementioned Teachers’ Expectation Protocol, it was possible to use the CDF-Based
Coding & Analysis Tool developed by SM-IT and SRM-AT to gauge which CDFs teachers
expect to see in their students’ written texts. Moreover, this type of analysis facilitated
insights into the features of disciplinary literacy/ies in a way that also brings to light how
teachers expect learners to construct content across different educational levels and within
various disciplines. The coding and analysis tool outlines several steps and guidelines for
each stage of this process, which also provides space for reflection, for example, to include
tentative assessments as to whether the researchers assume these expectations to be
realistic for the target age-group. Considering that no shared coding software could be used
(see Section 2.2), this tool offers suggestions on how to conduct such an analysis using textprocessing software, such as Microsoft Word.
3.3. RESULTS TASK-2: DATA AT A GLANCE
As shown in Table 7, nine WG3 Researchers undertook the TASK-2 survey, generating a
corpus of more than 25200 words of texts which 50 teachers from six countries had
produced to show what they expect their students to write.
Table 7. TASK-2 elicited texts from 50 teachers across nine countries
WG3 Researchers from the following ITC and non-ITC countries undertook TASK-2, eliciting
teachers’ texts. Researchers then analyzed their teachers’ texts using either the CDF-Coding
Tool (*) or another approach to understanding teachers’ expectations of productive disciplinary
discourse (+). Each Researcher’s Report can be found in the chapters in Section 3.4.
Albania
Austria
Italy
Serbia
Slovakia
Turkey
WG3-Researchers
(initials)
Cungu* (JC-AL)
Hoxha* (MH-AL)
Rieder-Marschallinger*
(SRM-AT)
Lopriore+ (LL-IT)
Minardi* (SM-IT)
Bakić-Mirić+ (NBM-RS)
Štefková* (JS-SK)
Adadan* (EA-TR)
Kurt* (YK-TR)
TOTAL
Number of teachers
involved
5
7
5
Word count
2
4
10
7
6
4
50
4998
36/D7
6409
1907
3140
2072
6745
25271
Figure 10. Distribution of teachers’ expectation data by education level (top) by country (bottom)
Figure 11. Range of education-levels of teachers’ expectations texts collected in each country
37/D7
Figure 12. Distribution of teachers’ expectation data by subject and country
NOTE: Some “country data” represents the work of more than one WG3 Researcher; “Science”
includes all science-related subjects; “General education” usually regards texts generated by
teachers of young learners, regarding subjects such as “civics”, etc.
Figure 13. Distribution of data by subject, country, and in CLIL or non-CLIL contexts
38/D7
3.4. SURVEY OF TEACHERS’ EXPECTATIONS: ANALYSES AND
REFLECTIONS
This Section presents the survey analyses and reflections of WG3 Members who chose to
undertake TASK-2, using “Teachers’ Expectations” of students’ writings as a proxy for
delineating “curricular demands of academic/disciplinary discourse”. Contrary to the Reports
in Section 2.4, which were authored by multiple members of national/regional teams, the
chapters in this Section are authored by individual WG3 Researchers.
The nine Chapters in this Section are organized as follows. Chapters 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 are
authored by SM-IT and SRM-AT, respectively, as an illustration of how CDF-experts
approach the coding and analyses of CDFs within complex texts in Science (specifically,
physics and maths) (SM-IT) and History and General Studies (SRM-AT). Chapters 3.4.3 to
3.4.7 are authored by WG3 Researchers who used the CDF-Coding & Analysis Tool
(Appendix, TOOL-3) to survey texts from their own teacher-contributors, who ranged from
primary-level EFL teachers to tertiary-level science teachers, and are organized in
alphabetical order of country and then researchers’ surnames. Finally, researchers authoring
the last two chapters (3.4.8 and 3.4.9, indicated with (+) in Table 7 above) did not use the
CDF-Coding & Analysis Tool but worked through their teacher-contributor-texts using more
general guiding questions for analysis and reflection, thereby providing an overview of and
reflection on the Teachers’ Expectations Elicitation Tool itself (TOOL-2), along with insights
gained concerning expectations that “their” subject teachers seem to have regarding
discipline-specific knowledge and language.
NOTE: As with the chapters in Section 2.4, these nine chapters are inserted within the body
of Deliverable-7 proper. Here too, the page-numbering of the document pertaining to the
Deliverable proper continues with “page/D7” while those of the Chapters are coded
accordingly, e.g. page 5 of the chapter written by SM-IT is numbered “5/SM-IT”. This
organisation allows these authors to continue their pursuit of interesting issues which have
emerged through this exploratory survey and subsequently update their chapters. To access
the survey of each author, click on the range of pages indicated. After these nine chapters,
readers will return to the page which follows this one, within the Deliverable proper.
CHAPTER 3.4.1. ITALY (1) (NON-ITC)
(Silvia M (SM-IT) 12 pages)
CHAPTER 3.4.2. AUSTRIA (NON-ITC)
(Silvia RM (SRM-AT) 10 pages)
CHAPTER 3.4.3. ALBANIA (1) (ITC)
(Jonida Cungu (JC-AL) 7 pages)
CHAPTER 3.4.4. ALBANIA (2) (ITC)
(Merita Hoxha (MH-AL) 6 pages)
39/D7
CHAPTER 3.4.5. SLOVAKIA (ITC)
(Jaroslava Štefková - 9 pages)
CHAPTER 3.4.6. TURKEY (ITC)
(Emine Adadan 6 pages)
CHAPTER 3.4.7. TURKEY (ITC)
(Yavuz Kurt 6 pages)
CHAPTER 3.4.8. ITALY (2) (NON-ITC)
(Lucilla Lopriore (LL-IT) 8 pages)
CHAPTER 3.4.9. SERBIA (RS)
(Natasa Bakić-Mirić 4 pages)
40/D7
Teachers’ expecta-ons in Italy: analysis of a Physics teacher’s expecta-ons
Silvia Minardi
Liceo Statale “Quasimodo” – Magenta (Milan)
1. Introduc+on
What follows is an analysis of what an Italian high school Physics teacher expects a “good” learner
might write when responding to a visual input. As presented in Sec?on 3.2 teachers were asked to
choose semio?c resources they might be using in their lessons and then to write what they would
expect a good student would produce when using that semio?c resource, for example in a test.
2. The par+cipants
I collected 20 dis?nct samples of semio?c resources from four teachers. Table 1 provides details on
the teachers, including the educa?onal level they teach, the subject from which the data was
gathered.
Table 1. Metadata on teachers and their semio4c resources
Teachers
Level
Years of teaching
experience
CLIL teacher
Semio9c resources
Number of
semio?c resources
Subject(s) involved
CLIL materials
GG
FB
High school
9 years
ET
Elena Tampellini
High school
32 years
AP
Alessandra Petazzi
High school
32 years
Primary
32 years
yes
yes
yes
yes
5
4
6
6
4: Science (CLIL)
1: EFL
yes
History (non CLIL)
Chemistry (CLIL)
Physics (CLIL)
no
yes
yes
The four CLIL teachers all have extensive teaching experience with the excep?on of FB. GG, serving
as a primary school teacher, has dedicated the past eight years to CLIL, benefi?ng from diverse
professional development ini?a?ves. The semio?c materials she has contributed primarily pertain to
scien?fic subjects, with one excep?on focusing on EFL.
FB is a teacher specializing in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for history and
philosophy at the high school level. Proficient at a B2 level in English, FB derives her semio?c
resources from an Italian coursebook, with a par?cular emphasis on content related to “Fascism in
Italy”, a topic usually covered in the final year History curriculum in Italian high schools. FB shares the
same ins?tu?onal affilia?on, but our teaching assignments and classes do not overlap. As regards the
resources, FB is the only one who has provided non-CLIL materials. ET (Elena Tampellini), a chemistry
teacher in a voca?onal high school, possesses an English proficiency level of C1. She assumes
1/SM-IT
responsibility for coordina?ng the con?nuous professional development (CPD) ini?a?ves among a
network of CLIL educators in the area where she works. The semio?c materials she contributed are
sourced from her instruc?onal materials for IGCSE courses. AP (Alessandra Petazzi), specializing in
Mathema?cs and Physics instruc?on at a liceo scien?fico in Italy, has five years of CLIL teaching
experience. Possessing a B2 English level, she primarily shares resources per?nent to Physics. Her
contribu?ons include materials from websites as well as a resource generated using the widelyu?lized applica?on, GeoGebra.
Engaging with these professionals was facilitated by my involvement as a trainer in various CLIL
courses over ?me, which is where I met all of them.
2.1. Alessandra Petazzi
The decision to focus on the semio?c resources provided by Alessandra Petazzi (AP) stems from my
previous PhD research studies (Minardi, 2020) on the use of language for learning in Physics. I met
Alessandra Petazzi in 2023 when I was a trainer in a CLIL course in Como. When it was ?me to collect
semio?c resources from teachers, I immediately thought AP might give an important contribu?on.
She provided six different SRs (Semio?c Resources):
1. SR 1 comprises two graphs depic?ng (a) the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribu?on of molecular
speeds, and (b) the most probable, average, and root-mean-square speed.
2. SR 2 features an image elucida?ng Boyle’s law, illustra?ng the behavior of ideal gases under
constant temperature condi?ons.
3. SR 3 is quite complex, including an image of a thermodynamic system alongside four dis?nct
graphs illustra?ng prevalent processes within such systems.
4. SR 4 encompasses three func?ons, requiring learners to discern if they illustrate the Extreme
Values Theorem (EVT).
5. SR 5 offers three examples of discon?nuous func?ons.
6. SR 6 includes a probability line depic?on.
Except for SR 2, each resource contains over 200 words, while SR 2 comprises 189 words. The ini?al
three SRs target 17-year-old students, whereas the lafer three are tailored for 18-year-old students,
all requiring a proficiency level of English equivalent to B1/B2.
Alessandra and I had a chance to discuss what we were doing and the nature of the data we were
collec?ng on different occasions. Following one of these discussions, Alessandra proposed the idea
of having her students describe the SRs aher she had already given me her own texts. Consequently,
for three of the SRs incorporated into the dataset, we obtained student-generated versions, which
offer invaluable insights into the ways Cogni?ve Discourse Func?ons (CDFs) are intended by the
teacher and used by the students.
3. The process
The teachers I reached out to responded diversely when requested to furnish examples of Semio?c
Resources (SRs) accompanied by a text reflec?ve of what they would an?cipate from a good student.
Some teachers, such as ET and AP, expressed interest in involving students directly in the task. ET
preferred this approach, believing that analyzing student-generated versions would offer richer
insights compared to scru?nizing texts produced by teachers themselves. On the other hand, AP
suggested engaging three different students to u?lize the SRs she had previously responded to,
aiming to explore and contrast the varia?ons between teacher and student texts. Conversely, certain
teachers, aher providing SRs, opted to elucidate how they would implement each SR in their
2/SM-IT
teaching prac?ces, omikng the crea?on of student-like texts, which were consequently excluded
from the dataset. FB inquired if she could provide SRs typically used in history lessons conducted in
the language of schooling rather than in CLIL sekngs. Our discussions ohen revolved around the role
of language in learning, with FB demonstra?ng consistent interest in my research on whether and
how CLIL teachers change the way they teach their own subject in the language of schooling. GG
stands out as the sole primary school teacher whose SRs were incorporated into my own dataset. I
had reached out to other primary school teachers, but with limited results. One teacher expressed
skep?cism regarding the u?lity of crahing a student-like text, while another provided SRs containing
descrip?ons of classroom procedures for u?lizing the resources. In one instance, the requirement to
use English was an obstacle, despite my offering to translate texts originally produced in Italian.
In total, I reached out to 12 teachers, yet only four of them responded and provided usable SRs.
4. The findings
Using the table proposed in the coding manual (see chapter 3.2 and Appendix, Chapter 4.3) the first
step in my analysis refers to the distribu?on of the different CDFs in the six SRs analysed. For each SR
the table below specifies if it contains a specific CDF episode (EP).
Table 2. Overview of coded CDFs
CATEGORIZE
SR1
EP
DEFINE
✓
DESCRIBE
✓
SR2
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
SR5
EP
SR6
EP
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
EXPLORE
REPORT
SR4
✓
EVALUATE
EXPLAIN
SR3
EP
✓
EP
EP
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
All the SRs within the analyzed dataset can be coded as episodes of the “categorize” CDF with the
only excep?ons of SR2 and SR4. They all fall under the broader category of “compare and contrast”
as they align with the defini?on of “compare and contrast” in the coding manual (See Sec?on for
Science), which defines such texts as those that “put two or more objects, facts [...] together and
state in what ways they are similar or dissimilar.” SR2 and SR4 have been coded as containing an
“explain” CDF episode.
To facilitate the comparison and contrast of objects and facts, various cogni?ve discourse func?ons
(CDFs) are employed within the texts. Notably, the CDF “describe” is consistently present across all
SRs at a fundamental level, which can be afributed to the inherent nature of the texts, wherein each
text provides a descrip?on of the content represented within the respec?ve SR. These
representa?ons encompass graphical depic?ons, such as graphs (SRs 1, 4, 5), or visual elements, such
as images (SRs 2, 6). SR3 stands out as it incorporates both an image and four dis?nct graphs, further
underscoring the mul?faceted nature of the compara?ve and contras?ng discourse within the
dataset.
SR2 is an example of an “explain” CDF episode: the image is used to explain Boyle’s law by depic?ng
the same container but in two different states. The fact that SR4 is not a “categorize” CDF episode
depends on the nature of the SR itself, which is used to assign a specific task to learners, i.e., “explain
3/SM-IT
whether the following func?ons sa?sfy the EVT or not”. The text which has been produced by the
teacher is in this case an “explain” CDF episode.
The “describe” CDF is present in all SRs. The way objects or phenomena are compared and
contrasted or explained always implies a process of visualiza?on and the descrip?on of what the SR
shows. This aligns with previous findings (Minardi, 2020: Kröss, 2014): describing a fact or an object
is an important component of any Physics lesson.
Figure 1 shows how the CDFs are distributed in the six SRs. What comes out is the difference
between the first three SRs where 5 or 6 different CDFs are used to respond to the visuals presented
while in the last three SRs only three CDFs are being used. We can hypothesise this depends on the
kind of visuals which was chosen by AP: SR4 and SR5 contain func?ons and SR6 a graphic
representa?on of a “probability line”.
Figure 1. Distribu4on of CDFs in AP’s semio4c resources.
What follows is a detailed analysis of each SR.
Semio&c resource 1
The text refers to two graphical representa?ons: one delineates the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribu?on,
showcasing the molecular speeds of a par?cular gas across varying temperatures, while the other
illustrates the dispari?es between the peak, mean, and root mean squared (rms) values of molecular
speeds (AP, SR1).
4/SM-IT
Figure 2. AP – Semio4c Resource 1.
Excerpt 1:
[CA (DS: This picture shows the distribution of molecular speed of an ideal gas. On the x-axis there
are the speed values; on the y-axis there are the percentages of molecules with the same speed value.
In figure one we can see that the peak value, which is related to the most probable speed
value, (EA: depends on the temperature of the gas, (RE: according to the formula < " > = √ !"#
.
$$
(EA: The higher the temperature is, the higher the most probable speed value is and the lower the
peak is. (EO: In fact, the area under the function must be the same for each temperature as it
represents all the molecules of the gas (100%).)
(CA/DS: In figure two we can see the difference between the peak value, the mean value and the socalled root mean squared (rms) value of molecules speed. The first one is the most frequent value of
molecular speed. The second one is the average (arithmetic mean) of the molecular Speeds).
( D F : The last one is defined by the formula < " > = √ ∑" $%&+ (($)* ) as it is obtained by
calculating the mean kinetic energy of the gas particles. It always happens that the peak value speed
is less than the average speed, which is less than the rms speed]. (Teacher AP)
Interes?ngly, while the text explains the phenomenon of how speed alters with temperature, it omits
explicit men?on of the colors used to dis?nguish the three lines on the graph illustra?ng this
rela?onship. Instead, to explain the phenomenon, the text opts to report a formula (“according to
the formula...”). In the subsequent segment of the text, the focus shihs to delinea?ng the dis?nc?ons
between the peak, mean, and rms values of molecular speeds. To facilitate comprehension of these
variances, the text frequently employs compara?ve and superla?ve forms, such as “the peak value
speed is less than the average speed, which is less than the rms speed.” This discourse strategy
serves to elucidate the nuanced differences in molecular speeds and effec?vely supports the aim of
compara?ve analysis and contrast within the discourse.
5/SM-IT
The discourse seamlessly integrates various languages of physics, including verbal, mathema?cal,
and visual representa?ons. Each linguis?c modality is selected to best convey the intended
explana?ons (part 1 of the text) and facilitate comparisons and contrasts (part 2 of the text).
From a linguis?c perspec?ve, the text serves the purpose of media?ng, as it employs diverse modes
of representa?on to elucidate the phenomenon under discussion. A graphical representa?on (fig.1)
illustrates the fluctua?on of molecular speeds in response to temperature changes, offering a visual
depic?on of the phenomenon. Within the text a formulaic representa?on supplements this visual
depic?on, providing an alterna?ve conceptual framework for explaining the phenomenon, i.e by
showing the rela?ons of cause and effect in the phenomenon under observa?on. In the lafer part of
the text, the focus shihs to compara?ve and contras?ng analysis, facilitated by an examina?on of the
peak, mean, and rms values of molecular speeds. These values, elucidated in a second graph (fig.2),
serve as points of comparison, allowing for a nuanced explora?on of the varia?ons inherent in
molecular speed.
Semio&c resource 2
In order to explain Boyle’s law SR2 shows “a container in two different states”, which are compared
throughout the text. The paragraph ini?ally reports Boyle’s law (“the picture refers to Boyle’s law”),
then it describes the different parts of the container and the objects visible in the SR (“a manometer
and a thermometer are shown”) and, finally, compares the condi?ons of the container (“we can see
that temperature is the same during the process, while pressure and volume change […] in the first
state volume equals 4L and pressure equals 1atm; in the second one volume equals 2L and pressure
equals 2atm”) before drawing a conclusion (“we can state that the product between pressure and
volume is constant: in fact, its value is 4L atm”). Apparently, this SR could be coded as a “categorize”
CDF episode. In fact, the comparison between the two different states of the same container
portrayed in the SR serves the purpose of explaining Boyle’s law. In the coding manual, the CDF
“explain” was specified as follows “I tell you about the process of seeking rela?onships among
scien?fic facts, for example by looking for causes and effects. Providing evidence is an essen?al part
of an explana?on”. In the SR under exam the law is explained through a comparison between the
states of the same container, which change (“effect”) as a consequence of a varia?on in pressure and
volume (“cause”) while temperature remains the same.
Linguis?cally, the text generated by AP employs two dis?nct strategies to illustrate the differences
between the two states of the container: firstly, by highligh?ng the constancy of temperature amidst
the changing pressure and volume (“the same... while…”); secondly, by presen?ng a direct
compara?ve framework (“in the first state…; in the second one…”).
In the descrip?on of the container two linguis?c elements frequently occur. The first is a frequent use
of the passive: “the container is graduated”, “it can also be heated or cooled”, “a manometer and a
thermometer are shown”. The second is the use of “we” in sentences such as “we can see”, “we can
measure”, “we can suppose”, “we can state”. In all these cases a passive form would have also been
possible.
Semio&c resource 3
The scenario depicted in SR3 entails a mul?faceted visual with an image labelled “thermodynamic
systems” and four graphs denoted as “thermodynamic processes.” The three thermodynamic
systems are designated as “open,” “closed,” and “isolated,” while the four graphs refer to the
6/SM-IT
“isobaric” (constant pressure), “isochoric” (constant volume), “isothermal” (constant temperature),
and “adiaba?c” processes.
Figure 3. AP – Semio4c Resource 3.
Ini?ally, the SR is described as showcasing the primary characteris?cs of a thermodynamic system
and the prevalent processes associated with it (“the picture shows the main characteris?cs of a
thermodynamic system1 and the most frequent processes we can study about a thermodynamic
system”). The whole text can be classified as a “categorize” CDF episode as it classifies the three
types of thermodynamic systems based on their interac?ons with the surroundings (first part of the
SR) and four dis?nct processes or behaviours typical of a thermodynamic system (second part of the
SR). Within SR3, there exists the sole example in AP’s dataset of an “evaluate” CDF. When introducing
the four primary processes, AP asserts “The most interes?ng processes are”, thus expressing an
opinion without providing jus?fica?on.
The classifica?on of the four processes by AP follows a symmetrical discourse pafern: ini?ally, a
defini?on is presented, followed by a specific reference to a law, with the excep?on of the adiaba?c
process, which lacks a direct reference to a specific law.
The text concludes with a recapitula?on of the image descrip?on. The last sentence introduces new
terms when referring to processes: “isobaric expansion,” “isochoric transi?on,” “isothermal
compression,” and “adiaba?c compression.” While providing a more precise and specific delinea?on
of the depicted phenomena, the text may aim to enhance clarity and conciseness. However, it is
notable that in the defini?ons of the four processes, the term “transi?ons” is consistently used
(“they are transi?ons that happen at a constant…” for the first three; and “they are transi?ons with
no exchange of heat between the system and the surroundings” for the last one). This recurring
usage may reflect AP’s an?cipa?on of learners’ poten?al confusion regarding technical terminology
related to thermodynamic systems.
From a linguis?c point of view, the “categorize” CDF element in the first part of the text exhibits a
sentence structure which is very similar:
1
The first three images do not in fact show “the characteris8cs of a thermodynamic system”. They show how to
classify thermodynamic systems according to the type of exchange between the system and the surroundings.
That is the reason why we have coded this text as a “categorise” CDF episode. It might be interes8ng to see if
AP wrote that sentence as she expects learners to use the term “characteris8cs” instead of “types”.
7/SM-IT
Excerpt 2:
[CA: A thermodynamic system can be:
- Open, when it can exchange both maUer and energy with the surroundings.
- Closed, when it can exchange only energy (heat and work) with the surroundings.
- Isolated, when it can exchange neither maUer nor energy with the surroundings.]
The comparison is linguis?cally made by using “both … and…”, “only” and “neither … nor…”.
However, it is not clear why AP thinks it is important to specify “heat and work” in brackets aher the
word “energy” for the closed type only.
Similarly, the “categorize” CDF in the second part of the text follows a consistent discourse pafern,
comprising two dis?nct CDFs: “define” and “report.”
Excerpt 3:
[CA (EV: The most interesting processes are):
• (DF: Isobaric processes. They are transitions that happen at a constant pressure.) (RE: In
these processes absolute temperature and volume are directly proportional) (according
to Charles’ law); )
• (DF: Isochoric processes. They are transitions that happen at a constant volume.) (RE: In
these processes absolute temperature and pressure are directly proportional (according
to Gay Lussac’s law);)
• (DF: Isothermal processes. They are transitions that happen at a constant temperature.)
(RE: In these processes pressure and volume are inversely proportional (according to
Boyle’s law);)
• (DF: Adiabatic processes. They are transitions with no exchange of heat between the
system and the surroundings).
(DS: The four transi&ons sketched in the picture are respec&vely: an isobaric expansion, an
isochoric transi&on, an isothermal compression, an adiaba&c compression.
The “define” sec?on adheres to the aforemen?oned pafern, while the “report” por?on consistently
appears within brackets and is introduced by “according to … law.”
Semio&c resource 4
This SR outlines an instructional scenario where students are tasked with evaluating whether three
given functions satisfy the Extreme Value Theorem (EVT). The text first reports the EVT and then
proceeds to analyze the three different functions using various CDF elements.
None of the three functions meet the criteria outlined in the EVT. Each analysis begins with a
statement indicating that the function under consideration does not fulfill the EVT theorem's
requirements. The subsequent discussion examines the function's characteristics, particularly
regarding maximum and minimum values.
As to the language dimensions involved, all the three elements
• start in the same way “the […] graph shows a func?on that does not fulfil the hypotheses of
the EVT theorem:” in which the colon is used to announce a sentence containing an
explana?on (“the func?on is not con?nuous” for graphs 2 and 3 and “the func?on is
con?nuous on a half-open interval” for graph 1);
• describe the proper?es of the func?on in terms of maximum and minimum values;
8/SM-IT
•
•
contain an example of an “explore” CDF element. The text gives “an explana?on for why
something happens” (cf. coding manual). For the first and third graph, the “explore” CDF
element is introduced by “as”. The second graph has a different level of complexity, which
obliges the teacher to use a double “explore” CDF element, one introduced by “nonetheless”
and the second taking the form of a reformula?on (“this means that…”);
the use of “also” in the descrip?on of the third graph (“this func?on also represents a
counterexample”) allows coding these three descrip?ve texts as performing three
“categorise” CDF elements. This approach allows for individual assessments of each graph
while identifying commonalities and differences among them. Each graph is analyzed in
isolation to address the task prompt effectively and discern the unique elements they
exhibit.
Semiotic resource 5
This SR serves the purpose of comparing and contrasting three non-continuous functions. The text
starts by defining a non-continuous function using a register which clearly belongs to everyday
language (“it is impossible to sketch their graphs without picking up the pen from the sheet”). This
sets the stage for introducing the “categorise” CDF episode by suggesting that all three functions
exhibit “different points of discontinuity”.
In order to categorize the three functions, the text uses:
a. “describe” CDF elements, offering detailed descriptions of each function and discussing their
characteristics and discontinuities;
b. “explore” CDF elements, trying to give reasons for each function's non-continuity.
When presenting the first function the text contains a greater variety of CDFs than in the other parts.
Excerpt 4:
[CA: (DS: In the picture we can see three functions that are not continuous in their domain). In
fact, (DF: itis impossible to sketch their graphs without picking up the pen from the sheet.) (DS:
The functions present different points of discontinuity).
(EO: The first function seems to be a homographic function), (DF: a particular kind of
equilateral hyperbola). (DS: Its domain is ℝ ∖ {−3} , where −3 (negative three) is the root of
the denominator. The function has a point of discontinuity at # = −3 : at this point there is a
vertical asymptote). (EO: It is possible to verify that the limits of the function as x approaches −3
(negativethree) both from the left and the right side are infinity).
(DS: The second graph shows a function that is not continuous at # = 1, although its domain
is ℝ. The limit of the function as x approaches 1 from the left side equals 3. The limit of the
function as x approaches 1 from the right side equals one. The function value at # = 1 equals
one. So we can say that there is a jump at # = 1.
The third graph shows a func&on that is not con&nuous at # = −2. The domain of the func&on
is ℝ ∖ {−2}. There is a hole at # = −2 as both the limits of the func&on as x approaches −2
(nega&ve two) from the leb and the right side equal two, but the func&on does not exist at #
= −2)] .
For the first function, the text employs a “define” CDF element by identifying it as a homographic
function, a specific type of equilateral hyperbola. From a linguistic perspective, the „explore“ CDF
9/SM-IT
element is expressed by phrases like „seems to be“ and „it is possible to verify that“,
indicating tentative explanations for why something happens the way it does.
For functions 2 and 3 the text highlights each function‘s specific domain, an essential textual
element, by using symbolic representations (e.g., ℝ ∖ {−2}).
Semiotic resource 6
This SR contains an image, showing a line called “a probability line”.
Figure 4. AP – Semio4c Resource 6.
After defining the notions of “probability” (in two sentences in which the latter uses a more
academic register) and “outcomes”, the whole text is used to describe the line so as to classify
events from impossible to certain with all the differences in between, i.e. “unlikely”, with an “even
chance” to happen, “likely”.
Excerpt 5:
[CA: (DS: In the picture we can see a probability line. It shows the main characteris&cs of
probability.)
(DF: Probability gives a measure of how likely an uncertain event is to happen. It is oben
defined as the ratio of favourable outcomes to the total number of outcomes of an event.
Outcomes are equally likely results that produce the event.)
(DS: Probability values span from zero to one), so we can say that they are represented by
real numbers. (DS: The probability of an impossible event equals zero (the event never
happens), while the probability of a certain event equals one (each outcome is favourable).
Any other event has a probability between zero and one, as only some outcomes are
favourable.
An event is unlikely when its probability is a number close to zero. For example, rolling a one
with a six-sided die is quite an unlikely event (one in six possibili&es).
By contrast an event is likely when its probability is a number close to one. For example,
choosing a blue marble from a jar containing four blue marbles and one red marble (four in
five possibili&es).
Furthermore, we can have events which have the same chance to happen. For example,
gefng head or tail when flipping a fair coin (one in two possibili&es for both the events)].
The SR contains three examples of events which can be classified as “unlikely”, “even chance” and
“likely”: these examples are described in the text and used as evidence to illustrate the three notions
of unlikelihood, even chance and likelihood. At the same time, they are concrete, simple, and based
on commonsense, everyday knowledge.
10/SM-IT
Moreover, from a linguistic point of view, the text uses linkers to (a) contrast situations (“while”, “by
contrast”); (b) add elements (“furthermore”); and (c) exemplify (“for example”), the latter being
used three times. The text employs straightforward and clear language, making complex concepts
more accessible: “an event is unlikely when its probability is a number close to zero” vs “an event is
likely when its probability is a number close to one”. The examples provided are grounded in
everyday experiences: rolling a die, choosing marbles from a jar, flipping a coin. The text does not
utilize passive voice or nominalization, maintaining a direct and active tone all the time. Technical
vocabulary related to probability (e.g., “probability”, “outcomes”, “favourable outcomes”) is used
accurately but is kept to a minimum.
5. Concluding remarks
The analysis provides some common threads in the use of language to express knowledge in the
specific domain of physics:
1. Each text employs specialized terminology specific to the domain of physics. When discussing the
semiotic resources AP often said she expects students to be able to use terms in a precise way.
2. The texts integrate multiple linguistic modalities, including verbal descriptions, mathematical
equations, and visual representations. Each modality is chosen strategically to best convey the
intended explanations and facilitate comprehension. This aligns with various research on the
language of physics (Doran, 2018; Minardi, 2023).
3. “Categorise” is the most widely used CDF in this group of SRs. In several texts comparative
analyses are used to highlight differences and similarities between different states, processes, or
phenomena. The texts often categorize and classify various elements within the domain of physics,
such as thermodynamic systems, or functions. The “categorise” CDF has an organizational structure
which helps in organizing information by also clarifying nuanced differences. “Evaluate” is seldom
used in the texts produced by AP..
4. Some texts provide evidence and justification for their explanations by referencing scientific laws,
principles, or observed phenomena (CDF: “report”). This strengthens the validity of the explanations
and enhances their credibility.
5. The texts predominantly use active voice and lack nominalizations, suggesting that students at this
level are not expected to frequently use these features of academic discourse. This observation
warrants further investigation. If confirmed, it indicates potential for additional instruction on the
discourse patterns commonly associated with the academic language of Physics.
References
- Doran, Y. (2018). The discourse of physics: Building knowledge through language, mathema&cs and
image. Routledge.
- Kröss, L. M. (2014). Cogni&ve discourse func&ons in upper secondary CLIL Physics lessons (Diploma
Thesis). University of Vienna, Vienna. Retrieved from hfp://othes.univie.ac.at/33460/.
- Maton, K., Mar?n, J. R., & Doran, Y. J. (Eds.). (2021). Teaching science: Knowledge, language,
pedagogy. Routledge.
- Minardi, S. (2020). Lingua, apprendimento e discipline. La fisica in lingua di scolarizzazione e in CLIL.
Pisa: Pacini Editore.
11/SM-IT
- Minardi, S. (2023). What do I need to know and do to ensure my own subject contributes to
learners’ plurilingual, intercultural and democra?c ci?zenship? The language dimension in Physics
educa?on. In Byram, M., Fleming, M., & Sheils, J. (Eds.), Quality and equity in educa&on: A prac&cal
guide to the Council of Europe vision of educa&on for plurilingual, intercultural and democra&c
ci&zenship (pp. 92-101). Bristol: Mul?lingual Mafers.
12/SM-IT
Teachers’ expectations in Austria: a comparison of lower secondary history and
primary-level ‘general studies’
Silvia Rieder-Marschallinger
KPH Wien/ Krems
1. Introduction
The following section presents case studies of what lower secondary teachers expect ‘good’ history
learners to write as a reaction to visual input compared to oral expectations of a primary teacher in
so-called general studies classes (“Sachunterricht”). These expectations were elicited using the
elicitation protocols presented in Chapter 3.2 (see also Appendix, Chapter 4.2). In other words, the
teachers were asked to first select semiotic elements they like to use in their lessons and then to
write down what they expect a good student would produce when using the same semiotic item to
evaluate the learning outcomes of teaching this unit, i.e., testing the learners. All three teachers
chose visual input in the form of photos, illustrations and cartoons as their semiotic elements to
prompt language production. In line with the elicitation protocols for the secondary level, the
expectations for history were assumed to be written language. In the case of the primary teacher, the
student output was assumed to be oral language to better reflect the nature of general studies
classes in primary education, which was also anticipated in the elicitation protocols used for this
project (again, see Chapter 3.2).
2. The process and participants
Overall, five Austrian teachers sent in a total of 20 texts between spring and autumn of 2023:
a. Five texts from a primary teacher (initials: SS)
b. Three texts from a lower secondary teacher (initials: CB), teaching history, English, biology,
handcrafting and IT (“Digitale Grundbildung”)
c. Two texts from a lower secondary teacher (initials: MR), teaching history and political
education as well as English
d. Five texts from an upper secondary teacher (initials: AK), teaching English (for business) and
Italian
e. Five texts from a secondary teacher (initials: AP), teaching English and geography
In general, these teachers seemed to find this task interesting, as it helped teachers reflect on
realistic expectations of the language needed in their subjects. Especially in the case of the primary
teacher, writing texts on their expectations (“Erwartungshorizonte”) is something that they
remember from their studies. Yet, this is not an activity they do regularly for planning. Most
secondary teachers, on the other hand, experienced this task as unusual and challenging but, for the
most part, understood and managed the task. Only the geography / EFL teacher and one of the
history teachers misunderstood the task and provided didactic comments and content descriptions
instead of hypothetical student texts. In case of the geography / EFL teacher, it needs to be added
that she received the instructions only in the written form. However, after explaining again, and
adding the line “insert here what a good student would write” in the elicitation protocol, they
understood and successfully revised their tasks. Overall, I assume that there might have been too
much information when explaining the task, resulting in them only skimming the instructions. These
difficulties were discussed in the working group’s meeting in Elbasan when polishing the elicitation
protocol.
1/SRM-AT
For the chapter at hand, only contributions by teachers a. - c. (SS, CB, MR) mentioned above were
considered to allow a reasonable and focused comparison. Table 1 provides metadata on these
teachers:
Table 1. Metadata on teachers
Teacher SS
Teacher CB
Teacher MR
Type of school
Public primary
Public lower secondary
Private lower secondary
Age
25
51
55
Years of teaching
experience
2
30
30
Subjects they
teach
all
History, English,
biology, handcrafting
and IT
History & English
Type of study
programme
Primary education with
a special focus on ELT &
German as a second
language; currently
working on her PhD in
the field of teaching
general studies
(“Sachunterricht”)
Secondary education
in the subjects English,
biology, religion &
German; several
certificates in the field
of CLIL, e-learning,
teaching methods and
librarianship
Secondary education in
the subjects English and
history; additional
Master’s in political
education; certificate in
CLIL teaching
Number of texts
5
3
2
Grade/ age-level of
the texts provided
Grade 3-4
Age 8-10
Grade 6 & 8
Age 12-14
Grade 6 & 8
Age 12-14
3. Findings
The ten texts by these three teachers were analysed using the coding manual developed for this
project (see Chapter 3.2 or TOOL-3 in the Appendix of the Report). In other words, the analysis
focused on identifying CDFs on both basic and episode-level as well as their linguistic realizations. As
defined by Dalton-Puffer et al. (2018), CDF-episodes are larger stretches of language unified by one
overarching communicative intention, which can include and be built up of smaller CDF-instances,
i.e., the so-called basic types. The table below presents an overview of the quantification of the
results of the qualitative coding:
Table 2. Overview of coded CDFs
CDF-type
Primary texts (n=5)
Basic level
Categorize
Episode level
1
Secondary texts (n=5)
Basic level
2
4
Define
Describe
7
Evaluate
3
0
Explain
1
3
2* (1 overlap with report)
8
2
1
3
Explore
Report
Episode level
2
2*(1 overlap with describe)
2/SRM-AT
7
1
No episode
identifiable
Total
2
1
14
27
As we can see, the secondary texts present a greater number and variety of CDF-basic types than the
primary counterparts, while describe and report seem to play important roles at the episode level in
both contexts. Before moving into the comparison in more detail, the sections below explore the
findings of each context in more depth.
3.1 Lower secondary history texts
Starting with history, the two teachers submitted three texts by imaginary 12-year-olds (grade 6) and
two texts by thought-up 14-year-olds (grade 8). Two of the grade-6 texts appear to mostly serve the
communicative intention of describing, making them describe-episodes. Given that all texts used
visual sources as prompts for student output, it is not surprising that describe also was the most
common basic-type in the five texts provided (n=8). These descriptions were often clearly indicated
by direct reference to the picture, e.g., using phrases such as “in the picture”, “there are”, “in front
of”, “in the background”, “on the left”, “looked like”, or “shows”. Furthermore, the imagined students
tended to use present simple to describe the content of the visuals as well as to use present
progressive for ongoing actions depicted in the source. These features made it easy to identify these
CDF instances, and this also suggests that description is something that these teachers assume that
their students can do well.
Similarly, report also played a considerable role in the texts, with seven instances of basic-level use. In
one case, the picture mainly served as a prompt for a historical report-episode. The frequent use of
report also is to be expected in these types of texts due to the nature of historical discourse (see
Bauer-Marschallinger, 2022; Coffin, 2006; Lorenzo, 2017), i.e., relating the visual representation to
the historical context not visible in the source. In these reports, the hypothetical students used past
simple as well as a relatively nominal style, both of which are typical features of this type of historical
discourse (see, e.g., Bauer-Marschallinger, 2022, or Lorenzo, 2017). Interestingly, one grade-8 text
uses nominalizations as well as participle clauses quite heavily (marked in bold in the sample below),
and generally presents a very complex sentence structure:
Excerpt 1:
… (DF/RE: The White Rose was an organisation of German students (founded by Sophie and
Hans Scholl and Alexander Schmorell), who saw the Nazi regime as threat to the country and
human freedom. (RE: The White Rose created several leaflets accusing the horrible crimes of
the Nazi regime. When spreading the leaflets at the university in 1943, the Scholl siblings
[sic] were caught by the janitor and finally arrested by the Gestapo.) … (Teacher CB)
What we can also see in this sample is a frequent use of passive voice (underlined) as well as subjectspecific terminology (“Gestapo” & “the White Rose”). As such, the text is linguistically rather
advanced and appropriate for historical discourse – even at a level that appears somewhat above
what a good 14-year-old can do, meaning that this text is linguistically more sophisticated than what
can be realistically expected at this level.
Moving on to explain, there is one text that seems to serve an explanatory purpose, overall (= CDFepisode). In this text, a hypothetical 12-year-old CLIL learner explains how different types of fossils
are formed based on a visualisation of these processes. Only in the first sentence, the student refers
to the graphic support, making it a describe-basic example. In all other parts, they explain different
fossilisation processes or define specific sub-types. When explaining, the student sometimes uses
clear, prototypical phrases for this, such as “due to” or “this is how”. Other times, they use less clear
signalling, such as the use of “and” in the first line in the excerpt below, where the second clause
actually is a consequence of the first, rather than additional information:
3/SRM-AT
Excerpt 2:
[EA: (DS: This graphic illustrates the different ways how fossils are formed): (EA: Animals die
and their soft parts decay. Hard body parts like shells or bones sink to the ground and are
covered by several layers of sedimental rock. In some cases, shells are filled with sediments
and the shell itself dissolves. This is how cast fossils are formed.)(DF: When shells or other
hard body parts create tracks, we call these fossils trace fossils or mold fossils). (RE: These
fossils are quite common and often found.)(EA: In some lucky cases the whole body turns into
hard rock due to high pressure.) (DF: This type of fossil is called body fossil.)] (Teacher CB)
Considering that the focus lies on what causes the differences in these types of fossils rather than
defining, describing and/or organizing these different types, the overall intention seems to be explain.
Somewhat clearer signalling could make this more obvious but would also be unrealistic for this age
group. In general, this fictional student already presents this information in a systematic manner,
even formulating a topic sentence, using subject-specific and precise vocabulary and, for the most
part, indicating communicative intention. This, I assume, would only be realistic from a very good
student at that age, or if the teacher explicitly practised verbalizing these types of processes. As a
side note, it should be mentioned that this text presents transdisciplinary knowledge, i.e., knowledge
important in geology and history. Overall, the focus definitely lies on geologic processes and not their
historical significance, which is also indicated by the use of the present simple and passive voice.
In the five texts, four definitions could be found (two of them are provided in the sample above). As
we can see, here, phrases such as “is called” or “when XY, we call this Z” are used. In the other two
examples, we find “x was y” (excerpt 1, line 1) or “is also known as”. So, generally, definitions were
easy to spot, as the communicative intention was clearly marked, indicating that teachers assume
that their learners know how to define terms used in their answers. It is quite noteworthy, however,
that there are only four instances of definitions in these texts, even though these hypothetical
learners were generally using subject-specific terminology. As such, it appears that teachers do not
expect their learners to habitually define the terms they are using in their texts at this level.
In one sample where it seems that no unifying episode can be identified, the CDF-basic type explore
is used three times. In this text, an imaginary 14-year-old student interprets a cartoon dealing with
the Cold War:
Excerpt 3:
(DS: You can see two men in the cartoon. They are fighting. They look angry and
concentrated. They are sitting on two bombs. (EO: I think they are very powerful and they
owe [sic] many weapons.)(DS/ CA: Both men are sweating and they are trying hard to win.
The man in the black suit wants to press a button.)(EO: I think the two men are not friends
and they are enemies. I think one is the American president and one is the soviet union
president.) (RE: They were enemies in the period of the cold war. There was always the
danger that they started a war again.(EO: Maybe even a worse one than the second world
war – maybe with atomic bombs.)) (Teacher MR)
In between descriptions of what can be seen in the cartoon and reports of external knowledge, this
imaginary student hypothesizes about the background and identity of the men depicted and the type
of war the Cold War could have become (explore). This is marked with “I think” as well as “maybe” (=
modal adverb). What appears to be lacking in this text is clear linking between the basic types, which
could also have made it easier to identify the overall purpose of the paragraph. As such, it can be
considered to be quite realistic for a 14-year-old CLIL history learner, as clear linking between CDFtypes is something many learners struggle with (see, e.g., Bauer-Marschallinger, 2022).
Finally, comparisons are only used twice in these five texts to compare descriptions using “both” for
similarities (see excerpt 3 above) and “whereas” for differences. Moreover, once, the text begins with
a categorization of the source: “This is a picture from the stone age” (Teacher MR). What seems to be
completely missing from the five texts are evaluations. Considering that the ability to evaluate is a
4/SRM-AT
central element of historical competence (e.g., Körber et al., 2007; see Bauer-Marschallinger, 2022),
its absence in these texts is interesting. It appears that these teachers do not yet expect their learners
to be able to do this at their own accord at this level. Only once, a text contains a statement that does
resemble appraisal: “The White Rose is one of the most famous and well-known resistance groups of
WWII”. However, this hypothetical student does not provide any real evaluation regarding historical
significance and also does not provide any justifications. Therefore, it appears more likely that this
imaginary student only reports a fact heard somewhere else and never digs any deeper regarding the
movement’s role in history or regarding the significance of the memorial in today’s world. So, while
this text (see also excerpt 1) is linguistically fairly advanced, I would argue that the expectations
concerning historical thinking skills are actually below what one could expect from a good learner
aged 14.
Concerning linguistic expectations, on the other hand, most texts reflect rather ambitious goals,
including frequent use of nominalizations, passive voice, complex sentence structure, as well as
consistent control of tenses. This would only be likely, I would argue, if the teacher explicitly taught
these linguistic features in connection to the types of visual input provided. One of the teachers (MR),
in fact, added comments regarding this, stating that she would practise describing historical scenes
and interpreting historical cartoons with her students.
Working with the CDF analysis tool has also allowed a better understanding of the structure of these
texts regarding the complexity and depth of dealing with the input. Usually, those texts with a greater
variety of CDF-types appear more sophisticated, especially if they are well and explicitly connected,
which most texts of this corpus do not fully achieve (see also Bauer-Marschallinger, 2022). In general,
those texts that clearly indicate communicative intentions are easier to follow and more systematic,
often culminating in a clear overarching purpose, i.e., CDF-episode. It was an interesting observation
that the CDF analysis allowed finding a mistake in an answer provided. In the text dealing with the
evolution of humans, the hypothetical student describes (and partly compares) different phases of
human evolution. While most of the details relating to these types of humans are depicted in the
source (i.e., therefore making them describe elements), one detail, namely “the use of hand axes” by
Homo habilis, is not shown in the source (Figure 1), and was therefore classified as report:
Excerpt 4:
DS: […] Homo habilis is the first to use tools like flintstone) (RE: hand axes and Homo habilis
already used fire). (Teacher CB)
However, the second detail of this
sentence, i.e., that Homo habilis was the
first to use fire, is in contradiction to the
source and, upon online research, this
instance of report seems to be factually
wrong. When first reading through the
text, I did not notice this, but the
CDF analysis, i.e., deciding whether it
was report or describe, made this issue
very obvious. Looking at the sentence
structure, it appears that this was
indeed a mistake and that the writer of
this text probably had “Homo erectus”
in mind at this point.
Figure 1. The evolution of mankind (Gilman Paiva, 2013, p. 28)
3.2 Primary general studies texts
Turning to the primary samples written by one teacher (SS) all relating to the subject “general
studies”, we can see that describe seems to be the most central CDF type, too. To be more precise,
5/SRM-AT
half of the CDFs used at the basic level and two out of five episodes are instances of describe,
meaning that the samples provided closely engage with what is visibly presented in the semiotic
elements. For that purpose, the hypothetical students use simple syntax and present simple, e.g.,
when describing general processes such as the water cycle (based on an illustration thereof): “Hot
water rises up into the sky. It is invisible then” (Teacher SS).
In another sample, they describe a route reading a map. Here, they also accurately use present
simple, but once, they use present progressive, which seems a bit off, especially since it is presented
as if you would have to start from the student’s home to get to the sports field: “To get to the sports
field I am starting from my home” (Teacher SS). However, such mistakes are to be expected from
primary learners, so I would argue that the sample above is realistic for the age group. In the same
extract, the student structures this describe-episode using temporal phrases such as “after”, “then”,
“again”, “now”.
In another sample, an imagined primary student describes the contents of two depicted lunch boxes,
using identifying phrases, e.g., “in the left lunch box” or “there is”, to structure the description:
Excerpt 5:
(DS: In the left lunch box are grapes and two sandwiches.) (EV: The sandwiches are healthy
because there is lettuce in it.) (DS: I can see cheese and tomatoes.) (EV: This is a healthy
snack.) (DS: I can see two sandwiches, in the blue lunch box. I think there is ham inside and
lettuce and tomatoes. There is no fruit inside.) (CA/EV: I think both boxes are healthy.)
(Teacher SS)
Moreover, this hypothetical student sometimes signals communicative intentions, e.g., with “I can
see”. Yet, the student does not signal their intentions throughout. For example, the parallel
description of the two lunch boxes seems to imply a comparison, but this is never explicitly expressed.
Only once does this student mark similarities using the word “both”. Similarly, it feels like this
imaginary student wanted to evaluate the healthiness of these two options but did not manage to do
so convincingly and systematically. For example, the student states twice that the lunch boxes are
healthy (or that they think so) following the descriptions of the contents, which could be viewed as
justification for this statement. Yet, this is not linguistically signalled, and the reasons could be a bit
more in-depth. In line 1 of excerpt 5, however, the student uses “because” to show that what follows
is a justification for the assessment. Again, the reason is not particularly sophisticated, but these are
the only instances of evaluate in the five texts provided.
Overall, the sample text above does not seem to be unified by a particular communicative intention
(= CDF episode). This teacher also offered an L1-version of the same text, now assuming to teach this
topic in traditional classes, and here, the overall communicative intention of evaluation comes out
much more clearly. In the German equivalent, justifications are provided more regularly and in more
depth. Also, communicative intentions are marked more clearly, and the different basic CDF-types are
better connected to support the overall message. In general, comparing the English-CLIL and German
non-CLIL versions, the German version usually provides more details, more precision, better
cohesion, a greater variety of CDF choices and (clearer) communicative signalling. This implies that
this primary teacher expects answers to be more complete (content-wise), but also more cohesive
(language-wise) when delivered in the students’ L1.
In one example, an imaginary 8-to-9-year-old student writes down their daily meals and food-related
habits based on a table that asks learners to track what they eat for a day:
Excerpt 6:
[(DS/RE: In the morning I get up, I eat breakfast. For breakfast I eat cereals with milk and
drink a glass of orange juice. In school I eat my sandwiches and only drink water. In my
sandwiches there is lettuce, tomatoes, and cheese. For lunch I always eat different meals. I
like to eat pizza and drink orange juice. In the afternoon I eat a snack and drink tea. I like fruit
as a snack. For dinner I like to eat soup and drink tea.)] (Teacher SS)
6/SRM-AT
Here, it is difficult to decide what type of main discourse function this is. The task itself would rather
ask for describe, i.e., tracking someone’s food consumption for a day like in an experiment. The
student, however, rather reports their general food-related habits, signalled by words like “always”,
the use of present simple, and by structuring this text according to times of the day (“in the morning”,
“for dinner I like to eat”, etc.). In between, the student includes stating a preference (“I like to eat
pizza”). While this involves opinions, it cannot be considered a scientific evaluation as no (criterionbased) justifications are provided. Although the German version also does not allow identifying a
single overall CDF-episode, the German text again provides more variety and precision. For example,
in the German version, the teacher included a criterion-based justification once, arguing that they
prefer water to soft drinks, because water is healthier.
In another text, report seemed to be the only CDF type used:
Excerpt 7:
[(RE: The girl needs her sense of sight, sense of touch, sense of smell and sense of taste to
eat her snack and drink. The boy needs his sense of sight, his sense of hearing and his sense
of touch to play the violin.)] (Teacher SS)
This imaginary 8-year-old reports which senses are needed a) to eat and drink and b) to play the
violin. The senses as such are not depicted, and the information included here can be seen as
“essential facts or elements of an occurrence” (see coding manual); therefore, these two sentences
have been categorized as report. This student also does not directly refer to the picture and does not
provide reasons or explanations for the facts stated. If this were provided and communicatively
signalled, it would present a more advanced sample, including other CDF-types. This, however, would
be unrealistic for the target age. The repetitive simple structure of the sample seems appropriate for
an 8-year-old A1 student. The use of nominalization also seems appropriate for the language of
science. As explained in the didactic comment of the teacher, she would teach the nominalized
phrases using rhymes and songs. Therefore, the used expressions appear realistic for the target
group. The teacher also emphasized that this sample would be produced in oral language and with
help from the teacher, given that Austrian 8-year-olds only receive limited English instruction,
especially regarding writing skills.
Again, the teacher also added a German version, i.e., what students would produce if she taught this
unit in the L1. Here, the answer is similar in nature, but it provides once more additional details and
also makes connections more explicit. So, the German text not only reports facts, but it also explains
why you both need smell and taste for eating.
In fact, explaining is included only once in the five English texts, namely when describing the water
cycle provided by a hypothetical 9-10-year-old student:
Excerpt 8:
(DS: Hot water rises up into the sky. It is invisible then.) (EA: When it cools down, it can rain or
snow or hail.)(DS: Then it goes back into the earth or rivers or oceans. And the water cycle can
start again.) (Teacher SS)
As mentioned above, this student just describes the process as is visible in the illustration, without
establishing the relationship between the steps. Only once does this student linguistically express a
connection (“when X, it can Y”).
In the German version, the language is considerably more precise in how the different steps are
connected, offering explanations for how water changes in the water cycle. There is also a lot more
detail, and in this version, the student uses and defines subject-specific terms, which the CLIL version
is lacking. Interestingly, looking at her didactic comment on the CLIL unit, the teacher mentions that
she would introduce the subject-specific vocabulary and chunks with a poem, which the students can
then reuse in their explanations of the water cycle. Therefore, I would argue that the CLIL sample
(excerpt 8) is somewhat below what one could expect from a good student, as we can expect good
7/SRM-AT
learners to use some of the chunks taught before. Moreover, especially if we assume that this is orally
provided, the teacher could prompt the learners to use phrases that establish the connection
between the different phases of the water cycle.
In general, however, the English CLIL texts provided by this teacher seem realistic for good students at
CEFR level pre-A1/A1 and often reflect the didactic considerations this teacher added. For example,
the teacher mentions in her didactic comment that expressing justifications, relative clauses, and
more complex sentence structures in general is something her learners want to do but are yet unable
to. She adds that in class, she scaffolds this by giving them sentence starters or asking eliciting
questions, co-constructing such episodes together, but she would not expect them to produce such
sentences on their own.
3.3 Comparison of primary and secondary texts
Comparing now the primary general studies CLIL texts and the lower secondary CLIL history texts, we
can see that in both contexts, describe seems to be the most central CDF type. Moreover, they also
use relatively similar linguistic means for this function, using present tenses, descriptive language and
prepositional phrases. Yet, naturally, the secondary students would use a greater variety of functional
language in a more discipline-specific way. Considering differences in cognitive maturity, extent of
English instruction, and the difference in educational context (one being discipline-specific, one being
“general education”), these dissimilarities are not surprising.
Similarly, report was used extensively in both contexts, but again the hypothetical secondary learners
used a greater variety of linguistic forms to realize this function in a more discipline-specific way, i.e.,
by using past tenses, nominalizations and even participle clauses. Turning to the content of these
reports, all three teachers seem to use visuals to prompt reporting declarative knowledge not directly
present in the source. Yet, in primary, the output is usually closer connected to what is visible and
appears more limited in scope than at secondary level, which again is to be expected given their
differences in cognitive development and experience in schooling.
Yet, the dominance of report and describe in both contexts indicates that these teachers appear to
have rather low expectations regarding thinking skills. CDF types that involve critical thinking are
almost absent from both sets of texts. For example, despite being a central CDF for historical thinking
(see, e.g., Bauer-Marschallinger, 2022), evaluate is not included in any of the five secondary texts. In
primary, we have three instances of evaluate, but these are very limited in scope and are also not
clearly marked. Likewise, explore, which entails hypothetical thinking, is used only rarely in this small
corpus, namely in one sample at secondary level. Being used to express logical thinking, explain, too,
is used rather infrequently in the secondary set of texts and only once in the primary texts.
What also became obvious in both sets of texts is that many texts do not sensibly intertwine other
CDF types to support the overall communicative intention (i.e., a CDF-episode). Previous research
already has shown that a greater variety of CDFs that are meaningfully linked to support the main
intention are usually examples that are highly ranked from a content perspective (BauerMarschallinger, 2022; Breeze & Dafouz, 2017; see also Lorenzo’s, 2017, observations regarding
functional stress). To be expected, in the primary texts, the complexity of CDF constructions is even
lower. Yet, what was interesting to see was that in the German samples, the CDF structure is more
intricate than in their CLIL counterparts. In other words, in the L1 texts, there clearly is a greater
variety of CDF types that are better linked and integrated into the whole text, sometimes making it
easier to identify the episode type. Yet, this did not happen across the board, and in some samples,
the structure of the German version was quite similar to the English CLIL version. Comparing the
German primary texts to the secondary English CLIL texts, overall, shows that irrespective of the
language, the CDF-structure tends to be more complex at secondary level. This is not surprising and
indicates that it is not only the language that limits the expression of these hypothetical learners, but
also cognitive maturity – at least in these teachers’ exemplifications of their expectations.
Moving on to expectations regarding subject-specific language use, we can see that in primary, the
teacher seems very aware that she is dealing with beginners. Considering her didactic comments that
8/SRM-AT
she would indeed teach chunks of functional language and subject-specific terminology in ageappropriate ways, the level she assumes a good student might have is actually on the more
pessimistic side. Usually, the structures are very simple, and the texts hardly include any disciplinerelated terminology. At secondary, the opposite seems to be the case: Here sometimes teachers
appear to have very high expectations regarding subject-specific language use, including frequent use
of nominalizations, passive voice, complex sentence structure, as well as consistent control of tenses.
One teacher mentions that they would indeed teach these aspects, which surely would be necessary
to reach this level of subject-specific discourse.
4. Conclusion and implications
To conclude, this type of data elicitation has shown that asking teachers to write down what they
expect good students to produce facilitates interesting insights into the type of language teachers are
aiming for. A CDF-based analysis of these texts has further shown that there seem to be considerable
differences in their expectations concerning the type of cognitive functions and the content structure
of such student productions. In terms of the type of cognitive discourse functions, the two contexts
appear to be surprisingly similar, with CDFs typically associated with lower-level thinking skills being
predominantly used in both collections. The differences relate more to the linguistic realizations and,
to some extent, the structure of CDF episodes.
What these analyses also make visible are pedagogical implications for CLIL teacher training that
helps teachers prepare their learners to actually reach these relatively high expectations regarding
linguistic realizations. When it comes to thinking skills, however, such teacher training might also
raise teachers’ awareness regarding offering a more balanced programme, i.e., showing them ways to
also tackle higher-order thinking skills, even at lower levels of education. This might also entail
focusing on CDF episode structure and content in order to help learners express their cognitive
processes in a more convincing and clear way. Especially young CLIL learners would benefit from such
an intervention, as here teachers might expect young learners to do noticeably less well in the L2
than in the L1.
5. References
Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2022). CLIL with a capital I – Using cognitive discourse functions to integrate
language and content acquisition in the CLIL history classroom [PhD]. University of Vienna,
Vienna.
Breeze, R., & Dafouz, E. (2017). Constructing complex cognitive discourse functions in higher
education: An exploratory study of exam answers in Spanish- and English-medium instruction
settings. System, 70, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.024
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause, and evaluation. Continuum
discourse series. Continuum.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2019). Cognitive discourse functions meet historical
competences: Towards an integrated pedagogy in CLIL history education. Journal of
Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7(1), 30–60.
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17017.dal
Dalton-Puffer, C., Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Brückl-Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L., &
Lechner, L. (2018). Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL lessons: towards an
empirical validation of the CDF Construct. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 5–29.
https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0028
Gilman Paiva, J. (2013). The Awesome Book of Prehistoric Animals. Flowerpot Children’s Press.
Körber, A., Schreiber, W., & Schöner, A. (Eds.). (2007). Kompetenzen historischen Denkens
[competences of historical thinking]: Ein Strukturmodell als Beitrag zur
Kompetenzorientierung in der Geschichtsdidaktik [a structural model contributing to
competency-based history didactics]. ars una.
9/SRM-AT
Lorenzo, F. (2017). Historical literacy in bilingual settings: Cognitive academic language in CLIL history
narratives. Linguistics and Education, 37, 32–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.11.002
10/SRM-AT
Reflections Using the Teachers’ Expectation in Albania: case analyses of textbooks of primary
and secondary school
Jonida Cungu
University of Elbasan “Aleksandër Xhuvani”, Albania
1. Introduction
This chapter concerns the presentation of reflections for completing the Teachers' Expectation Tool by
the group of teachers of the Albanian education system, Elbasan region, who participate in the CDF
analysis by completing Task 2. The focus of this report is based on the curriculum framework of Albanian
education, mainly in the subjects: history, science, mathematics. These subjects are developed in both
cycles of education: primary and secondary school (6-9 years school) with the same denomination,
except for the subject of science, which is called natural knowledge in primary education and biology in
secondary education. The authors of the textbooks are Albanian and foreign, since the science texts are
translated and adapted to Albanian for the students, while the history texts are written by Albanian
authors.
This material presents the case studies of teachers engaged in documenting the expectations they had
regarding the interpretations of semiotic images in the textbooks they work with. The teachers were
asked to select from the textbooks the teaching topics that they thought were better covered. Among
them, the illustrative images of the selected educational topics were drawn and they were asked to write
their expectations, how they would interpret the picture from the focus of the best pupil. So, what do
they expect from a very good pupil, to produce his interpretation of an image in the text. Using the
"Teachers' Expectation Tool" we collect data related to the Albanian educational context, which does not
use the CLIL approach in their curriculum. In the official document of the Ministry of Education
"Standards for school textbooks", (2014) the purpose and standard of the use of illustrations in the text,
which aim to encourage the student's independent action when working with the school textbook, is
defined. Also, illustrations should not simply represent or reproduce what is found in the text, but
contain information that complements the text, encouraging students to engage with the text in depth.
In order to have a heterogeneous sampling, photos were chosen from texts of different school cycles:
primary education and secondary education. The photos were also chosen from different chapters and
different topics, with the aim that the testing of the students for language production based on the
semiotic image, would be as concrete as possible.
This chapter aims to reflect reflections on the use of the teacher's expectations tool, with the aim of
analyzing the role played by the semiotic image of a textbook in the realization of language functions,
describing them through different types of CDF-s.
2. The process and participants
For the realization of the task in this project, 5 teachers were engaged, who teach in primary education
and secondary education. They were engaged in the completion of 19 texts, according to the academic
field they cover, fulfilling the expectations for some semiotic images. The "Teachers' Expectation Tool"
instrument was completed in the Albanian language, since the CLIL approach is not applied in the
Albanian educational context, and then it is translated into English using Google translate and verified by
an english teacher. Selected schools are located in the urban and rural areas of the city. The teachers
have long work experience and are qualified for their profession. Only two of them belong to primary
1/JC-AL
education, which means that they teach all the subjects included in this educational cycle. However, in
this task, they have given language expectations only for a certain subject.
Table 1. Characteristics of the participants
Teacher V.K
Teacher T.M
Teacher T.S
Teacher M.K
Teacher V.M
Type of
school
Public primary
Public primary
Public secondary
school
Public secondary
school
Public secondary
school
Age
49
58
42
44
56
Years of
teaching
experience
13
36
20
21
30
Subjects they
teach
all
all
Maths
History
Biology
Type of study
programme
Primary
education and
Master’s degree
in primary school
Primary
education and
Albanian
language and
literature degree
for secondary
and high school
Degree in
Mathematics
and Physics for
secondary and
high school
Degree in History
and Geography
for secondary
and high school
Degree in
Biology and
Chemistry for
secondary and
high school
Number of
submitted
texts
5
3
5
3
3
Grade/agelevel of the
texts
provided
Grade 1-5
Grade 4-6
Grade 6 - 9
Grade 7 – 9
Grade 6 - 8
Age 7-11 years
Age 10-12 years
Age 12-15 years
Age 13-15 years
Age 12-14 years
Only one text was selected from each participant, with a total of five texts. Consequently, 5 texts from
different academic fields were coded and commented on. The completion of the material was carried
out by the teachers for a period of several months during the beginning of 2024.
All teachers were contacted verbally, where they were explained how they should work. Initially, they
encountered difficulties, as the task was understood as if the teachers themselves would interpret the
selected semiotic text. For this reason, the interpretations of the images were made for the second time,
after further clarifications. Secondly, the discussion arose as to which text would be called a good text.
Or to put it another way, what characteristics should they have in mind when interpreting the text, in
order to be qualified as a good linguistic reproduction. In general, there was a tendency to refer to the
field of competencies, based on the fact that the curriculum of the Albanian education system is built on
basic competencies and field competencies. In order for the data obtained to be as concrete and
measurable as possible, it was explained in detail what a semiotic image is, what are the semiotic
elements and how you can communicate through the semiotic image. The idea that did not unite our
thoughts was related to their findings, that the photos used for illustrations in the textbooks are not
used as a tool for interpretation by the teacher, since they are often not related to the content presented
2/JC-AL
in the text. For this reason, teachers decide to choose those images and educational topics, where the
space to interpret would be more favorable than in topics, where semiotic images are not related to the
content of the educational topic.
The other dilemma was related to how they would reflect the images in their interpretations. Since most
of the texts used in the Albanian education system are not digitized, then the only possibility to present
the semiotic images in their reflections was to scan the photos and place them in the material presented
in word. Therefore, the presented images are individual work done by the teachers.
3. Findings
The selected texts were analyzed according to the draft CDF analyzes (Dalton-Puffer, 2013). From the 19
realized texts, we have data for only 5 semiotics texts (ST): two texts of primary school (science and
history) and three texts of secondary school (math, history and science). The analyzed texts belong to
each subject, with the aim of observing the changes in linguistic realizations in history, math and science
texts. The individual text lengths ranged from 89 words to 114 words. Some of the general
characteristics of these texts are:
a) ST1 pertains to the knowledge of nature (science) for primary education classes and the book is
written by a foreign author. The topic is related to the grouping of living things and several types
of animals are given in the figure, in order for the students to classify them according to groups.
The text fulfills different communicative purposes, having a mixture of episodes: description,
categorization and reporting. The semiotic element used in the text is helpful for the descriptive
and categorizing function.
b) ST2 is taken from the history book of primary education. It presents a descriptive photo to
illustrate the lesson topic "My family history". The image shows the generations of a family,
presenting 3 generations of a family. The text contains several episodes, which are classified into
descriptive, categorizing and explanatory.
c) ST3 is related to the teaching topic of the subject of mathematics “Fractions and decimal
numbers”. The semiotic image represents a shopping center, where percentage price reductions
are given for different items. The picture is completed with words, which help the student to be
oriented more towards explanation than towards description. At this text we have several
different communicative purposes present, but mostly they are oriented towards explanation.
d) ST4 is taken from the history book of secondary education. The semiotic image represents some
slaves working and loading different goods. In an imaginary way, the photo gives the opportunity
to over-interpret the period of feudalism, creating a text with an explanatory character, more
than a descriptive one.
e) ST5 belongs to the subject of biology (science) of secondary school and the knowledge given
about the vital organ of the heart. In the semiotic image, the organ of the heart is shown in
detail. The semiotic image is also equipped with language tools for illustration. The text contains
sentences that have some CDFs in sequence, which are natural for the expression of a 14-yearold child.
The number of CDF levels analyzed in these semiotics texts is separated from one text to another by the
sign / (slash). These data are detailed in the table and presented in the chart below:
3/JC-AL
Table 2. Characteristics of coded CDF-s for each analyzed text
Primary
texts
CDF-Type
Basic level
CATEGORIZE
5/2
Episode level
DEFINE
DESCRIBE
4/3
EVALUATE
EXPLAIN
Number of
words/text
Secondary
texts
3
Basic level
Episode level
Total
1/1
1 overlaps with
REPORT
10 Categorize
Text:1 (89 words)
1
1 Define
Text:2 (101 words)
1/2/2
12 Describe
Text:3 (86 words)
1/1
2 Evaluate
Text:4 (88 words)
15 Explain
Text:5 (117 words)
2/5/4
1 overlaps with
REPORT
EXPLORE
-
REPORT
2
TOTAL
19
-
1/1
1 overlaps with
EXPLAIN
5 Report
23
3
45 CDF-s
Total of words:481
Table 3. The frequency of CDF-s across five semiotic texts (left) and the percentages of CDFs in terms of
word count (right)
Frequency of CDFs
11%
15
Categorize
0%4%
Define
22%
2%
10
Describe
Explain
5
34%
Report
27%
Ca
te
go
riz
e
De
fin
De e
sc
rib
e
Ex
pl
ain
Re
po
r
Ex t
pl
o
Ev re
al
ua
te
0
Explore
Evaluate
The analysis of the texts focused on the identification of CDF at the base and episode level, as well as on
the linguistic interpretations. Quantitative data for coding results can be seen in Table 2. The primary
texts have a smaller number of categories of basic CDF types compared to secondary level texts. They do
not show any episode level CDF, where one of the types of CDF can overlap the other type. It happens
differently in secondary texts, where the number and variety of CDF types are visible.
Primary texts: The type of CDF-s that dominates these texts is the DESCRIBE CDF and the CATEGORIZE
CDF. It seems that it is normal for this age group to have this type of episode. In addition, communication
with the semiotic image seems to be more direct, which encourages description and is identified
through the expressions: in the photo; the photo shows etc. There are several linguistic elements that
4/JC-AL
identify the texts as descriptive: (a) verbs in the passive form; (b) personal and possessive pronouns of
the third person, which serve as deictic words and have an indicative function; (c) the prepositions "in"
and "on" that place in local relation sentences; (d) words that are directly related to what appears in the
picture. There are also some linguistic elements that identify the texts as categorizing: (a) verbs that
semantically mark comparison or categorization (divide, include, belong, resemble, etc.); (b) the subjects
in a consecutive manner. Basic level of EXPLORE and REPORT is at minimum values, as primary texts are
oriented more towards descriptive language.
Secondary texts: Basic level is more diverse than episode level. The type of CDF-s that dominates these
texts is EXPLAIN. There are several linguistic elements that identify this type of CDF-s: (a) the use of verbs
in the infinitive; (b) conjunctions that show cause and effect; (c) modal verb are features that report
information with the purpose of explaining; (d) superlative adverb; (e) compound sentences using
conjunctions "when" to give reasons and causes and specific vocabulary. During this categorization,
there is a tendency to explain not only based on the semiotic image, but also in relation to previous
knowledge. Only in one case does it happen that EXPLAIN overlaps with another type of CDF-s, such as
REPORT.
DESCRIPTION is another type of CDF found in texts. The first sentences with which the text begins are
mainly descriptive. These sentences are always accompanied by verbs in the present tense, which
semantically indicate state, belonging or presentation (I have, I am, shows, consists etc.). The names
used in the description are directly related to the identification of what is seen in the photo, so most
descriptive sentences begin with a subject, which is identified in the semiotic image as an element. The
use of the present continuous and demonstrative pronoun are linguistic elements in the function of
description. The sentences have a simple grammatical structure, since the description also requires a
basic level of cognitive and language skills. The syntax of the sentence is simple, avoiding sentences with
subordinate clauses. A use of adverbs, prepositions and adjectives is observed. We also have present and
time indicators, which are given through the lexicon with elements that refer to space.
CATEGORIZE is another type of CDF-s that is used more frequently in science texts. Sentences are
accompanied by the use of pronouns and verbs that semantically require comparison (resemble, include,
divide, etc.). Categorical type is considered at the average level of requirements for students, then the
imaginary expectations of teachers are related to this type of level.
The most used type of CDF is EXPLAIN. Sentences are mainly composed and through the use of
conjunctions, verb tenses, subordinate parts and specific vocabulary determine cause-effect
relationships. Categorizations of the explain type are also seen in the report type of texts. The elements
that fulfill the explanatory function in the texts such as: (a) the use of verbs in the infinitive; (b)
conjunctions that show cause-and-effect and (c) modal verbs are features that report information with
the purpose of explaining. The past tense and specific nouns are used to mark periods and realize the
connection of cause-and-effect. One of the linguistic elements that distinguish this type of CDF is related
to: the use of sentences with the time conjunction "when", such sentences are used to give reasons and
causes by using superlative adjectives and contradictory conjunctions. We use simple syntactic
constructions and the use of specific lexicon in accordance with the treated topic.
The REPORT, DEFINE and EVALUATE levels are rarely used in the expectations of text interpretation and
are categorized by a few linguistic elements, such as: evaluative language using adverbs and adjectives,
numbers and specific vocabulary. EVALUATE is characterized by criteria or standards that can be
quantitative, i.e., expressible in numbers (Rieder-Marschallinger, S. 2022). The other elements are more
related to the contextual nature of the reading. The REPORT and EVALUATE is found more in the
interpretation of the text of the old secondary schools because older students usually provided more
arguments to support their judgment (Dalton-Puffer, Ch. & Bauer-Marschallinger, S. 2019). Episode level
5/JC-AL
is seen in three cases, where in 2 cases EXPLAIN and REPORT overlap each other and once CATEGORIZE
overlap REPORT. Science and mathematics texts have more CDF types than history texts.
In a general, evaluation of the texts, it seems that the teachers expect the most from the students to
explain. Regarding the Albanian educational context, this trend finds justification, because the
curriculum based on Basic Competencies puts teachers in front of the commitment that students acquire
skills and attitudes. This seems to push them towards the tendency for the type of CDF EXPLAIN, while
for the process of understanding through the semiotic image, other types of CDF-s would be more
valuable. This basic level that is more present in science texts than in other texts shows “the role of
language as a constituent part of subject competence: “being good at science, for example, also means
being good at talking and writing about science, in a specific, conventionalized way (Minardi, S. 2020). In
the texts we also note that they contain information that is not directly presented in the text. This
encourages the explanatory nature, making it possible to use the CDF-s, EXPLAIN, more frequently.
However, the language chosen for interpretation by the teachers is suitable for the age of the students,
even though there was the expectation to have in the texts many types of CDF-s interlaced. In the
interpretations of secondary school texts, the language is more chosen and the use of sentences with
complex grammatical structures prevails.
The other levels of the CDF-s, such as: EVALUATE, DEFINE are fewer in number compared to the other
levels, while the EXPLORE level, which is related to hypothetical thinking, is completely missing. Although
only a few texts were taken to be analyzed, the little use of Evaluate and Define levels, as well as the
complete absence of the Explore level, make us think that the semiotic images are not selected in the
right way to awaken curiosity of students, in order to seek to understand more deeply through the
image, but allows them to reach descriptive, comparative and explanatory level.
4. Conclusions
As a conclusion, we can say that semiotic images play an important role in promoting the process of
understanding, which is realized through descriptions from different types of CDF. The data showed that
language functions are realized through different basic levels of the CDF, where the most useful are
Explore, Describe and Categorize.
Teachers' expectations are related to the type of language they aim from their students to achieve the
cognitive and content functions expressed through language realizations. The use of language in the
analyzed texts represents the use of several linguistic elements, related to: specific vocabulary and
special grammatical and semantic tools, which are in function of linguistic realization for different types
of CDF.
Explain is the most used CDF in these texts, which is also related to the need to adhere to the curricular
framework of Albanian education, which is built on the basis of basic and key competencies. While the
level Explores, it is almost absent in the analysis of the texts. In general, we can say that semiotic images
are expected by teachers to be a function of learning and understanding the text in depth and not simply
with an illustrative function.
5. References
Curricular Framework of Pre-university Education of the Republic of Albania, Ministry of Education and
Sports, Albania.
https://ascap.edu.al/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Korniza-Kurrikulare.pdf
6/JC-AL
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising contentlanguage integration in CLIL and multilingual education. EuJAL, 1(2), 216–253.
Dalton-Puffer, Ch. & Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2019). Cognitive Discourse Functions meet historical
competences Towards an integrated pedagogy in CLIL history education. Journal of Immersion
and Content-Based Language Education 7:1, pp. 31–61.
Minardi, s. (2019). The Language Dimensions of Physics teaching for learning in CLIL and in the language
of schooling.
https://www.ecml.at/Portals/1/5MTP/Erin%20Jonas/documents/EOL%20Research%20text%202
-PhDResearchProject_Silvia%20Minardi.pdf
Rieder-Marschallinger, S. (2022). CLIL with a capital I: Using cognitive discourse functions to integrate
content and language learning in CLIL history education. Available at ResearchGate.
"Standards for school textbooks", (2014). Ministry of Education, Albania.
https://arsimi.gov.al/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Standardet_tekstet_shkollore1.pdf
7/JC-AL
Reflec%ons Using the Teachers’ Expecta%on Tool: The Case of Albania
Merita Hoxha
University of Elbasan, Aleksandër Xhuvani
1. Introduc+on
This report is an analysis of what Albanian teachers expect a “good” learner to write responding to a
visual input; a semioCc item that teachers selected from the materials they work with. As presented in
Chapter 3.1. teachers were asked to choose around 5 semioCc items they might be using in their lessons
and then to write what they would expect a good student to produce when using that specific semioCc
item, for example in a test.
2. The process and par+cipants
Seven teachers who teach in the city of Elbasan parCcipated in Task 2 “Teachers’ expectaCon survey”. All
the teachers agreed to voluntarily parCcipate in the survey and based on the GDPR and the rules of
CA21114 they signed the consent form. The teachers were all contacted in person from April 2023 to
December 2023. During the first meeCng they were presented with the Task and were informed about
their rights, the aim of the survey and what they were expected to do.
Table 1. Demographic informa4on of par4cipants
Par$cipant
Experience
Grade
School type
Target group age
Subject they teach
Nr of semio<cs
Teacher 1
35
10-12
Public, Bilingual
16-18
French
5
Teacher 2
20
6-9
Public, non-CLIL
12-15
English
1
Teacher 3
16
3-9
Public, non-CLIL
9-15
English
5
Teacher 4
6
6-9
Public, non-CLIL
12-15
Math
5
Teacher 5
29
6-9
Public, non-CLIL
12-15
Physics
5
Teacher 6
11
10-12
Public, bilingual
16-18
Math & Physics
5
Teacher 7
9
6-9
Private, non-CLIL
12-15
History
5
Teacher 1 and Teacher 6 work at the same bilingual high school (French and Albanian). Teacher 1 teaches
French and she has prepared her texts in French which then were translated into English and sent back
to the teacher for confirmaCon. Teacher 6. teaches Math and Physics in French at the same high school.
She produced the texts in Albanian. Teacher 2 works in a public lower secondary school in the city center
while Teacher 3 works in a lower secondary school in a remote village. They both teach EFL and have
1/MH-AL
produced the texts in English. Teachers 4 and 5 work at the same school in the city center and have
produced their texts in Albanian. Teacher 7 who works in a private primary and lower secondary school
in the city of Elbasan has also produced the texts in Albanian. All the texts that were produced by the
teachers in Albanian were translated and then double-checked with the teachers.
The data collecCon process took place from April to December 2023. I contacted 11 content and
language teachers from Elbasan. I tried to collect data from experienced teachers as well as less
experienced ones. They were all contacted in person and only seven teachers were able to complete the
task although they all seemed enthusiasCc at the beginning. Generally, the first impression regarding the
task was “Oh, wow, sounds so interesCng!” but when the work started, some of them found it very
challenging. Nevertheless, the teachers who completed the task reported that that was a “great
exercise” which made them reflect on their daily work.
During the first meeCng the teachers were presented with the task and given detailed instrucCons and,
in the meanwhile, I tried not to influence their task compleCon. While I used the term semioCc items to
explain to the teachers what we were asking them to do for this task, I used the term “mulCdisciplinary
semioCc item” to explain the term to teachers of languages. The explanaCon of the term, as agreed by
WG3 members during our working group meeCng in Vienna in March 2023, was that the semioCc items
that the language teachers had to choose, should not be used in the textbooks with the purpose of
teaching vocabulary, but rather teaching content.
3
Findings
The table below as proposed in the coding manual (see chapter 3.3) refers to the distribuCon of the
different CDFs in the five texts analyzed. For each text the table below specifies if it contains a specific
CDF episode (EP).
The data summarized show that the most commonly used basic level CDF is described. Despite the
subject the teachers teach, the age of their students, whether they teach in a public or private school,
CLIL or non-CLIL school, the CDF idenCfied in all their texts is DESCRIBE. This was to some point
anCcipated as the task for the teachers was to “write a text based on a semioCc item (imagine, graph,
chart, etc), imagining themselves to be one of their good students. What was unexpected though, was
the menCon of other CDF, which are somehow different from one teacher to the other despite the
similarity menConed above. For example, explore is basic level CDF which is used only once in the texts
analyzed, while we can idenCfy no menCons of define.
2/MH-AL
Table 2. Overview of coded DCFs
SR1
SR2
SR3
SR4
SR5
history
physics
EFL
FFL/CLIL
Physics/CLIL
Categorize
√
√
√
√ (EP)
Define
Describe
√
Evaluate
√
Explain
√
√ (overlap with CA)
√ (EP)
Explore
Report
√
√
√
√
√ (EP)
√
√
When we look at 7 types of CDF, we can see from the table above that teachers generally “expect their
imaginary student” to menCon approximately 3 types of CDF. Two teachers though, (Teacher 3 & Teacher
4) have used more types of basic level CDF, thus making the communicaCve purpose of the text a lifle
more complex. It would be interesCng to discuss and analyze this specific case in order to understand
why these teachers “unintenConally” included four or five types of CDF. One hypothesis might be related
to the subject they teach. Both teachers are language teachers teaching in different contexts though.
Whether this is one of the factors contribuCng to a highest percentage of CDF menConed, we cannot be
sure, but it would be interesCng to see the report of other countries which might have collected data
from language teachers as well.
On the other hand, Teacher 2 and Teacher 5, who teach Physics and MathemaCcs, have used only two
types of CDF in their text in both cases to describe and explain. Whether this is a coincidence or not, or
whether it is related to the subject they teach, again we can just speculate. What is interesCng is that
they teach in different contexts. Teacher 2 teaches Physics in a public lower secondary non-CLIL school,
while Teacher 5 teaches Physics and MathemaCcs in a public upper secondary CLIL school.
While we can idenCfy an episode (EP-explain) in the text produced by Teacher 2, the same episode
seems to be menConed in the text of Teacher 5 also, but the analysis shows that this is just a tentaCve
and not an episode per se.
Teacher 5.
Text produced by the teacher: (DS: In the figure, two forms of wave propagaCon are depicted.) (DS:
Figure a) represents the propagaCon of a transverse wave,) (EA: created by fixing one end of the medium
and displacing the free end to the leh and right.) (EA: In a transverse wave, the parCcles of the medium
move perpendicular to the direcCon of wave propaga4on.) (DS: Figure b) represents the propagaCon of a
longitudinal wave,) (EA: created by displacing the free end back and forth along the medium.) (EA: In a
longitudinal wave, the parCcles move parallel to the direcCon of wave propagaCon.)
3/MH-AL
In this text, Teacher 5 seems to focus on EXPLAIN how the transverse and longitudinal waves are
created, however we can say it is just a tentaCve explanaCon as not much evidence is provided. To try to
explain how the waves are created and their characterisCcs, “our imaginary student” of the 11th grade of
a CLIL school starts by describing the picture using “in the figure”, “two forms of waves are depicted”.
Then the student tries to explain how each specific type of wave is created by using “created by…”. The
student uses other phrases such as “perpendicular to the direc4on of wave” or “parallel to the direc4on
of wave” to “explain” the movement of different waves. The student uses present simple to DESCRIBE
the pictures; the creaCon and the movement of the waves.
Although the sentences explaining the movement of the waves are not connected together, it seems like
the student is also trying to idenCfy the differences between the two waves regarding movement. In
such a case we might talk about an overlap of two basic level CDF; describe and explain. Considering that
the text is produced by a CLIL student whose level of French as the CLIL language is B1, the text might be
considered realisCc for two main reasons. The first reason regards the use of the linguisCc elements and
the CDF, and the second regards the unclarity of the episode. Although it seems like the imaginary
student is trying to explain, there is lack of evidence for this, which is somehow realisCc as students
ohen do this especially when they write in Physics.
Teacher 2.
Text produced by the teacher: [EA: (DS: In the figure, we observe a hydraulic machine. Its main parts are:
2 cylindrical vessels with different diameters, the connecCng part, pistons that seal each vessel from
above, and the fluid that completely fills the vessels.) (EA: Under the acCon of force FA, the smaller
piston A will move downwards, exerCng pressure on the fluid.)
p= FA / SA (SA−area of piston A)
According to Pascal's law, this pressure will be transmifed uniformly throughout the fluid, so it will also
exert force on the larger piston B, lihing it upwards. In this way, the machine placed on the larger piston
will be lihed upwards. This means that at every unit of the surface area of piston B, an addiConal force
equal to p is exerted.) (DS: From the figure, we observe that piston A moves more than piston B,) (EA:
making us understand that with the hydraulic machine, we "gain" in force but "lose" in distance.)]
As we can see from the text, the main communicaCve intenCon in this text is to explain how a hydraulic
machine works, meaning that the episode type is EXPLAIN. The imaginary student provides this
explanaCon by first describing what we see in the picture “In the figure we observe...”. Then the student
explains how the machine works using simple phrases like “according to Pascal’s law”, “under the ac4on
of force…”, “this means”, “making us understand”, and the formula provided. The text, though in a
linguisCc context, seems somehow complex and unrealisCc for the age of the good student.
While for the other teachers we could compare the results as they teach the same subjects despite
different contexts, for Teacher 1 who teaches History in a private lower-secondary school this is not
possible. What is interesCng about that text is that the teacher expects the good student to have a very
clear idea of the communicaCve intenCon of the text (EP-report) and to be able to use specialized
4/MH-AL
terminology for that specific subject and topic. The teacher seems to expect a lot more from his student
in a linguisCc context, thus making it quite unrealisCc even for “our good imaginary student”. While
expecCng the student to describe, evaluate and report based on the semioCc item selected (a picture
showing NATO building with the NATO flag as well as the Albanian flag and the American flag), the
teacher expects students to use subject specific terms such as: subsequently inspired, aLempts to disrupt
the established interna4onal geopoli4cal order, or largest global military alliance which in my point of
view (not a content specialist) are too complex for a good 15-year-old student.
One thing that we might want to consider in this case is that the teacher who produced this text is also a
researcher in the field of History and a part-Cme lecturer at the university, and what he produced might
have been influenced by his background. This raises the quesCon of how and how much the background
of the teacher influences his/her expectaCons on the language that the good student needs to produce.
Considering the five texts we can say that three of them seem quite realisCc to be produced by the good
student (in those specific contexts and topics), one of them unrealisCc and the other somehow realisCc.
Challenges and limita4ons:
It is important to emphasize in this report that there are some challenges and limitaCons which need to
be considered.
•
Probably because of lack of proficiency in English, content teachers produced the texts in
Albanian. The texts were then translated in English and double-checked with the teachers. Yet,
we consider there might have been slight changes in the translaCon process which we are not
aware of. The same might have happened with one of the language teachers who teaches
French in a CLIL school who produced the text in French.
•
As reported by the teachers the decision of finding the most adequate semioCc items was
challenging. This was especially emphasized by the History teacher maybe due to the fact that
History books are the only textbooks in Albanian schools that are wrifen by Albanian authors,
who unfortunately seem not to focus much on the use of semioCc items (MoE, 2014).
•
I contacted 11 teachers and only 7 teachers responded (one of them was able to produce only
one text). All the teachers that I contacted live and work in Elbasan, thus the data I have
collected represents a very limited number of teachers from only one region in Albania.
4. Conclusions & implica+ons
Aher reviewing the teachers’ contribuCons, we have come to the following conclusions:
1. All the teachers admifed that when in the class, they mostly focus on their students absorbing
the subject content rather than the use of language. This task made them see the process of
teaching and learning in a different perspecCve.
5/MH-AL
2. Generally, the teachers tend to use approximately three CDF. There is a difference in the CDF
used between language teachers and science teachers. Language teachers have used more CDF
(four or five) compared to Physic teachers who have used only two.
3. The CDFs that are very rarely used are define and explore and the reasoning behind this decision
remains unclear.
4. Not all the teachers have a clear communicaCve intenCon (episode) in their texts. SomeCmes
(Teacher 5 and Teacher 3) there is a tentaCve, but not explicitly described.
5. Each text employs specialized terminology specific to the domain. In the case of language
teachers this seems more related to the topic rather than the domain.
5. References
Curricular Framework of Pre-university EducaCon of the Republic of Albania, Ministry of EducaCon
and Sports, Albania. hfps://ascap.edu.al/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Korniza-Kurrikulare.pdf
"Standards for school textbooks", (2014). Ministry of EducaCon, Albania.
hfps://arsimi.gov.al/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Standardet_tekstet_shkollore1.pdf
6/MH-AL
Report on COST participation in Working Group 3 – Task 2 Teachers’ expectations:
Slovakia
Jaroslava Štefková
Technical University in Zvolen, Slovakia
1. Introduction - Joining COST
I joined the COST organization, namely CA21114 - CLIL Network for Languages in Education: Towards bi- and
multilingual disciplinary literacies (CLILNetLE), Working Group 3, on August 3rd, 2023. I started to familiarize
myself with the COST matrix, mission, and working group tasks.
I found a lot of people involved in the working group. At this stage, Teresa Ting – Working Group 3 leader reached out to me and introduced the task descriptions. The tasks for WG3 had already been stated. They
were designed into two tasks: Task 1 to analyze national curriculum materials for disciplinary literacies or
cognitive discourse functions and/or Task 2 to analyze semiotic resources used by content and language
teachers across educational levels for CDFs.
According to those descriptions, I decided to work on Task 2, which was an inquiry into content teachers’
expectations of what disciplinary literacies are. I reached out to the teachers of Mathematics, Chemistry,
and Forestry whom I had known before. I explained what I would need and left them some time to work on
it. The work on this task is described in sections 4 and 5. Then, within the aims of the COST Action, there
were three online training sessions on understanding and application of cognitive discourse functions
conducted by Silvia Rieder-Marschallinger (Austria) and Silvia Minardi (Italy), supported by Christiane
Dalton-Puffer (Austria). After the online trainings, there was a meeting of the members of WG3 in Elbasan
(Albania), where we met in person and worked together on the tasks related to WG3 and WG2. After that, I
contacted other teachers because of the interviews with the members of WG5 in Slovakia, who asked me to
help them with their tasks. On that occasion, I collected the other five SEs, this time from teachers with a
CLIL background. In mid-April, we also had an online discussion on the use of the coding manual to analyze
CDFs in semiotic resources. The online discussion was very useful as it cleared all doubts about the
understanding and conduct of the analyses.
2. Trainings – CDF analysis
The trainings were held online on 15th, 22nd, 29th January, and 12th February via ZOOM. The comprehenisve
EXPLAIN on how to identify individual CDFs was explained using sample history texts and science texts.The
mentors Silvia Rieder-Marschallinger (for history) and Silvia Minardi (for science) were very knowledgeable
and well-prepared and answered all our questions and guided us through uncertainties we had when
analysing the sample extracts. I find it important to learn these new professional skills for my professional
growth. Moreover, it is critical for the successful project progress. Furthermore, the trainings were recorded,
and the people enrolled in the trainings could get to the recordings of the trainings in Google Drive via a
shared document. I do appreciate this option as it offers a possibility to return to the content discussed and
used in the training.
3. The Meeting in Elbasan
The meeting in Elbasan had several dimensions. Firstly, the members of the WG met in person. It made a
difference in communication and networking, as nothing can substitute personal contact and perception. The
people stood out of the computer screens and became physical people. I suppose this enhanced
communication and willingness to cooperate, behave responsibly towards each other, fulfill tasks on time,
and other similar intangible matters.
1/JS-SK
Another dimension is related to the project's progress. The members of the working group in both tasks
shared their thoughts on curriculum analysis and teachers’ expectation analysis. During the meeting, we
discussed the feedback on curriculum extracts and teachers’ expectations, which we had already gathered.
Within our task, we consequently created metainformation forms – a front page for the individual curriculum
extracts, a front page for each semiotic resource description, and a form for information about the
contributing teacher. We also managed to draft a manual on how to code CDFs to individual teachers'
expectations and tested it within a small group.
The last, but not least dimension is cultural, as we had a chance to see how people live and work in Albania, a
member country of COST organisation and our COST action as well.
4. Semiotic resources – tool for identification of disciplinary literacies
Semiotic resources (hereinafter SR) were designed to serve to gather texts teachers expect their good
students to produce when seeing the SR. The description of a SR suggested it should be any visual used in the
instruction of the subject. The subjects we were focusing on were Mathematics, Science comprising biology,
chemistry, physics, History, and Foreign Language across the educational levels, i.e., primary, secondary, and
tertiary levels of education. The call for SRs was open wide.
4.1 Collecting semiotic resources
I collected fourteen (14) SRs from seven teachers listed in Table 1. All of them teach at the tertiary level.
Three of them teach at the Faculty of Medicine in an EMI environment. The remaining four teachers teach
content subjects (disciplines) at a technical university in a non-CLIL environment. The contributing teachers
consist of five women and two men, with teaching experiences ranging from 5 to over 20 years. However, as
content teachers teaching in the EMI environment, they did not know anything about the CLIL method.
Learning it or getting familiar with it seemed unimportant to them, because they have their content to teach,
and that is all they need to be perfect in.
Table 1. List of participating teachers and their characteristics
Initials of the
participating
teacher.
The subject
she/he teaches.
EB
IP
MS
DL
ZP
VV
JS
Science biology,
chemistry
Science physics,
chemistry
Science Physics
Math Geometry
Science forestry
Science chemistry
Math
Female
Participating
teacher's gender
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
31-40
Teacher's
approximate age
41-50
41-50
41-50
41-50
41-50
41-50
Years of
experience
11-15
16-20
11-15
21-25
11-15
16-20
16-20
Teacher's
background
Chemistry
Physics
Physics
Design
Forestry
Chemistry
Math
Number of SRs
2
1
2
3
2
1
3
CLIL or Non-CLIL
EMI
EMI
EMI
Non-CLIL
Non-CLIL
Non-CLIL
Non-CLIL
2/JS-SK
The teachers from the Non-CLIL environment are aware of the CLIL method from their previous experience in
the CLIL project. The SRs include six from mathematics and geometry, two from biology (specifically forestry),
and six from sciences (chemistry and interdisciplinary subjects like biochemistry and biophysics). The
teachers use a lot of visuals; however, they were surprised when asked to step into the student´s shoes and
write what a good student would say or write about the images. There are two aspects that could influence
the text provided for an SR. Firstly, it would be insightful to have the same teacher repeat the task after some
time to verify the reliability of their responses. Secondly, comparing descriptions from a mediocre student, a
top student, and a struggling student could reveal more about students' actual disciplinary capabilities.
5. Analysis of semiotic resources
I analyzed five semiotic resource datasheets from three teachers. The information is summarised in Table 2.
Table 2. Information on contributing teachers and semiotic resources
Teacher
DL1 – Denisa
Lizoňová
DL2 – Denisa
Lizoňová
DL3 – Denisa
Lizoňová
ZP2 – Zuzana
Parobeková
VV1Veronika
Veľková
Years of
experience
25
25
25
11
19
Subject
Mathematics
- Geometry
Mathematics
- Geometry
Mathematics
- Geometry
Science Forestry
ScienceChemistry
tertiary
tertiary
tertiary
tertiary
tertiary
Google
translated
Google
translated
Google
translated
Google
translated
Deepl
translated
Non-CLIL
Non-CLIL
Non-CLIL
Non-CLIL
Non-CLIL
114
159
141
234
191
Educational
level
English texts
CLIL/NonCLIL
Number of
words
The analysis is divided into two parts: understanding semiotic resources and texts' analysis.
Firstly, a relationship between the quality of SR and the number or kind of CDFs used to describe them (dealt
with in 5.1, Notion 1) is discussed, and secondly, the inclusion of abstract thinking or providing the context
for the topic shall be introduced.
5.1 Semiotic resources as visual information media
Having analyzed five SRs and following an online task members’ discussion, it is evident that the semiotic
resources vary and significantly influence the CDFs required to describe them.
Notion 1: Information loading - visual input of SRs
3/JS-SK
VV is a university chemistry teacher with 19 years of experience. She can speak English but does not use
English in her classes. She contributed one SR. The text was translated by VV (?) using Deepl. The SR was on
Dangerous goods.
The semiotic resource from VV has very limited visual input—two colours and two numbers. So, the CDFs
needed to describe it mostly refer to information from external sources, this led me to code the SR as a
REPORT CDF episode.
(VV1) Chemistry – Dangerous goods
Figure 1: Semiotic resource from VV1
According to Eppler and Burkhard (2013, p.112), “Knowledge visualization designates all graphic means that
can be used to construct, assess, measure, convey or apply knowledge (i.e. complex insights, experiences,
methods, etc.). Beyond the mere transport of information or facts, people who employ knowledge
visualization aim to create, assess, reference, or transfer insights, experiences, attitudes, values,
expectations, perspectives, opinions, and predictions, and this in a way that enables someone else to reconstruct, remember, find or apply these insights correctly.” This characteristic particularly applies to
sciences or content subjects. Moreover, Eppel and Burkhard (2013) present a table describing visuals from
various aspects, such as knowledge type, knowledge visualization purpose, target group, situation where it
should be used, and visualization format (p.13). There are at least two areas worth mentioning, which are
knowledge type and visualization format. The knowledge type is further divided into six types of knowledge:
declarative knowledge (know-what), procedural knowledge (know-how), experiential knowledge or
experience (know-why), people-related knowledge (know-who), orientation or location-based knowledge
(know-where), scenario-based knowledge (know-what-if) or normative, value-based knowledge. Regarding
the format, they are described as structured texts/tables, mental images/stories, heuristic sketches,
conceptual diagrams, images /visual metaphors, knowledge maps, and interactive visualizations.
Within our COST research, it should be studied more deeply if some of the formats (conceptual diagrams,
tables, knowledge maps) appear more often in semiotic resources from/for science subjects, while others
(mental images/stories, sketches, interactive visualizations) might be found more often in language
education.
Notion 2 : Abstract thinking employment and context presentation
The next example presents the semiotic resource from DL from Mathematics – Geometry. DL has 25 years of
teaching experience. She teaches subjects of Descriptive Geometry and Applied geometry in furniture design.
She teaches in Slovak. Although she can speak English, she does not teach in English, and her texts were
translated by Google Translate.
There are two SRs with real objects. The first one shows a real object, a gas station shelter construction.
However, it is used for the EXPLAIN of geometrical shapes. The second one shows a steel bar in the shape of
a helix. The texts of these semiotic resources did not say much about them. Even if the object is mentioned in
the first sentence only, it never appears later in the text produced by DL. The text mentions subject-related
words, such as lines, planes, curves, etc., which are not obvious in the picture. So, the imaginary student
describing this SR is expected to use a lot of abstract thinking and imagination. The question of how to
capture this mental activity of a student arises, as it is not included in CDFs.
4/JS-SK
DL3- Math/Geometry - Helix
(DL1- Math/Geometry – Hyperbolic
Paraboloid)
Figure 2: Semiotic resources DL1 and DL3
The next striking idea builds on the ability of semiotic resources to supply contextual information. As it is in
this particular SR. It depicts a real object used to show learners a possible application of geometry to real-life
objects. The students then can see how mastering geometry is connected to real life. However, this should
be inferred from the text, as apart from the first sentence (“it shows a technical surface”), the rest of the
text is geometry and not a description of the shelter (See Text DL1).
The idea of connecting real-life objects to scientific rules does not refer directly to disciplinary literacies, but
it relates to the concept of CLIL in the sense of 4Cs (Coyle et al., 2010). The four Cs in CLIL entail content,
communication, cognition, and culture. Content refers to knowledge (which is being investigated by CDF
analyses) used in a real sociocultural context. In this regard, the mentioned semiotic elements provide a
certain context for knowledge, in this case, geometry. Cognition refers to cognitive or thinking skills that
learners use which could refer to disciplinary literacies. This concept implies that semiotic resources could
also provide some context that embeds content when we are talking about sciences. The question that we
cannot answer about these particular SRs is whether the teacher intended or expected a student to
emphasize this context or not.
5.2 CDF analyses of the texts
The following part discusses the analysises of texts. In every text, I focused on episode CDFs, basic CDFs, and
linguistic features. All the texts come from a tertiary level and were chosen from three different fields:
math/geometry, forestry, and chemistry. None of the teachers use English in their instruction.
5.2. 1 Texts from DL (DL1 – Hyperbolic Paraboloid, DL2 - DL2 Math/Geometry – Linear
Perspective, DL3 Math/Geometry – Helix)
The three texts from geometry, which all come from the same teacher, are rather similar in their style. All of
them use language where key terms are repeatedly used but are not pictured, so the teacher expects the
students to imagine or visualise the terms in the picture. In two cases out of three, there are pictures of real
objects used to explain some geometry rules (Figure 2, DL1 and DL3). In all cases, the texts use a lot of
subject-related vocabulary, and passives1. Personal pronouns referring to the person describing the image,
such as “we” or “I”, are rarely used. I found only one example of an EVALUATE CDF, which overlapped with
REPORTING. Yet, it is not personal evaluation but external knowledge that the author finds it important to
mention.
1
Colour-coding is being used in the analyses to show the mentioned linguistic features: subject-related
vocabulary, passives, personal pronouns, adjectives, nominalisation. It does not follow the Coding
Manual.
5/JS-SK
Text DL1:
“ [DS: The figure shows a technical surface called a hyperbolic paraboloid. This particular solution
was created as an intersection of a hyperbolic paraboloid with a rotating cylindrical surface.) (DF: A
hyperbolic paraboloid is characterized by containing two families of mutually skew lines.) (EA: The
lines in each family are parallel to a common plane, but not to each other. Each line from one
intersects all lines from the other system. Each point of a hyperbolic paraboloid is traversed by two
constituent lines, each from a different system.) (DF: A hyperbolic paraboloid is most often defined
by a spatial quadrilateral.) (EA: The name hyperbolic paraboloid is derived from the fact that the
cross-sections of this surface are parabolas and hyperbolas.) ]”
Text DL2, extract :
“EV/RE: There is one important difference between linear perspective and painter's perspective,…”
Text DL3:
[DS: The picture shows a practical use of a curve we call a cylindrical helix.) (EA: It is formed by the socalled helical motion of a point about an axis. The screw motion is a motion composed of two uniform
motions: a rotational motion about the o-axis and a displacement in the direction of the o-axis.) (DF:
The distance of the screwed point from the axis is called the radius of the helix. The distance the point
travels in the direction of the axis of the screw when rotated through 360° is called the height of the
screw thread.) (EA: Due to the orientation of the movement, we speak of a right- or left-handed helix.)
(DF: One thread of a helix is the part of the helix between two points for which the difference of
rotation between them is 360°. ) (DF: A helix is a space curve.)]
5.2.2 Text ZP2 – Forestry – Forest-steppe ecosystems
In text ZP2, we can see that numerous adjectives are used. The adjectives´ density2 achieved 18%. The text
incorporates external knowledge from different fields, such as geology, botany, zoology, and forest
management (See the complete analysis of the semiotic resource text)
Text ZP2 – Forestry, extract
“DS: Forest-steppe communities are shown in the pictures. Groups of forest trees alternate with
grassy areas and thus create a typical rich forest-steppe mosaic. RE: These communities are usually
found on south-facing slopes on permeable rocks, mainly limestone, dolomite or rocks of volcanic
origin. The soils are shallow, quickly drying out, poor in nutrients and often stony.) (RE: Trees (that
tolerate extreme drought and overheating) are typical for this community. ….
5.2.3 Text VV1 – Chemistry – Dangerous goods
This semiotic resource provided limited “visual information” as it has been pointed out earlier (section 5.1,
Notion 1). The CDF episode is REPORT. The other basic CDFs used in the text are DESCRIBE, DEFINE, and
EXPLAIN. The text uses nominalizations through subject-specific vocabulary. There is no hedging, as the
2
The adjective density was calculated as the number of adjectives per the number of words in the text.
6/JS-SK
sentences are clear and stated. The language students are expected to use is exact and objective, with
frequent references to outside sources. The adjective density is 7%. The verb “is” from the phrase something
is something else is used seven times in this short text.
Text VV1 – Dangerous goods
[DS: (DF: A model of the ADR table, which is used to mark vehicles when transporting dangerous
goods.) (EX: ADR is the European Agreement on the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road.) (RE:
Every vehicle transporting any dangerous substance must be marked with an orange board bordered
in black divided into two parts.)]
[DS: In the upper part there is the Kemler code, in the lower part there is the UN code.) (RE: The
Kemler code can be a two- or three-digit number that describes the type of danger of the given
substance), (DF "doubling" the number means increased danger in the given area.) (RE: Specifically,
33 means highly flammable liquid.) [RE (DF: The UN code is the identification number of a specific
dangerous substance or group of substances assigned by the United Nations Committee of Experts on
the Transport of Dangerous Goods. In this case, it is fuel (automotive) gasoline.) DF: Gasoline is a
highly flammable liquid of a hydrocarbon nature, (CA: it belongs to the 1st danger class with an
ignition temperature of up to 21 °C.) (EA: It evaporates easily and its vapors are explosive when mixed
with air.) (DS: It is harmful to the environment, especially surface and underground water and plant
organisms.)]
6. Summary of the analyses:
DL1 Math/Geometry – Hyperbolic Paraboloid
Episode
DESCRIBE
Basic CDFs
EXPLAIN, DEFINE
Number of basic CDFs
2
Linguistically outstanding items
Subject-related vocabulary, context
DL2 Math/Geometry – Linear Perspective
Episode
DESCRIBE
Basic CDFs
EXPLAIN, DEFINE, REPORTING, EVALUATE
Number of basic CDFs
4
Linguistically outstanding items
Subject-related vocabulary, abstract thinking
DL3 Math/Geometry - Helix
Episode
DESCRIBE
Basic CDFs
EXPLAIN, DEFINE
Number of basic CDFs
2
Linguistically outstanding items
Subject-related vocabulary, passives, context
7/JS-SK
ZP2 Forestry – Forest-steppe communities
Episode
DESCRIBE/EXPLAIN
Basic CDFs
REPORT, DESCRIBE, EXPLAIN
Number of basic CDFs
3
Linguistically outstanding items
Adjectives (density=18%), a lot of “for example”,
multiple expertise
VV1 Chemistry – Hazardous substances
Episode
REPORTING
Basic CDFs
DESCRIBE, EXPLAIN, DEFINE, CLASSIFY
Number of basic CDFs
4
Linguistically outstanding items
Subject-related vocabulary, nominalization, verb
structure: is - phrase
7. Conclusions
Participating in COST CLILNetLE provides invaluable experience in many aspects. It connects people working
in different environments who bring expertise and different points of view. It unifies the efforts to achieve
the designed aims. Semiotic resources seem to be an effective tool for investigating the use and distribution
of CDS within the examined fields, namely, science, history, and language.
Based on the analyses of the texts for SRs from different sciences, several interesting ideas appeared. I could
not compare them to other SRs by subject, educational level, CLIL ort non-CLIL background. However, I
believe, all SRs provided a different idea worth further developing or investigating.
It was found that DESCRIBE is the most frequently used CDF in the texts analyzed together with EXPLAIN,
DEFINE and REPORT. There are occasional occurrences of EVALUATE and CATEGORIZE. The EXPLORE CDF was
not used.
Looking at linguistic features, the most common features were subject-related vocabulary, the use of
adjectives, nominalization, and the use of passives. Personal pronouns are scarcely used; if they are used,
they do not introduce personal involvement or standpoint. That suggests that technical texts are very often
objective and impersonal; therefore, they hardly use EVALUATE or EXPLORE CDFs.
The areas that need further investigation might include:
- the visual content of the semiotic resources and their systematization or classification;
- the connection between an SR and CDFs. It seems that REPORTING CDF (Notion 1) is more often used if the
SR does not show rich visual information;
- how to capture the imagination or abstract thinking (Notion 2) which connects the text and the SR.
Cognitive discourse functions show the cognitive processes applied in the text. However, they do not cover
abstract thinking or imagination which is sometimes needed to visualize the content in the SR, as in SR DL1
and DL3 (Figure 1)
- to find out the relationship between sciences and CDFs and/or individual linguistic features. Quantification
is needed to prove any relationships.
8/JS-SK
References:
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL – Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Eppler, M.J. and Burkhard, R.A. (2007). Visual representations in knowledge management: framework and
cases. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 112-122.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710762756
9/JS-SK
Teachers’ Expectations in Turkey: A case of a chemistry teacher
Emine Adadan
Bogazici University, Istanbul Turkey
1. Introduction
This chapter presents a case study of a chemistry teacher’s expectations about what a good high school
student would be supposed to write as a response to various visual semiotics presented in the textbooks
to represent the particular scientific ideas.
2. The participants and process
I collected data from a total of six chemistry teachers who are working in different secondary schools in
Turkey (see Table 1). All six teachers are female with one (1) to 10 years of teaching experience. They all
have B.S. degrees in teaching chemistry, and one of the teachers completed her master’s degree in
chemistry education. Four of the six teachers work in private CLIL schools where science and
mathematics courses are fully taught in English. All teachers are fluent in English as they all completed
their undergraduate degree at a University where all courses are offered in English, except Turkish
Literacy and History of Turkish Republic courses. In this chapter, I only focused on the semiotic texts
provided by Teacher E, who is a CLIL teacher in a private school with nine years of experience.
Table 1. Demographic information of participants
Teacher A
Teacher B
Teacher C
Teacher D
Teacher E
Teacher F
Type of school
PrivateUpper
SecondaryNotCLIL
PrivateUpper
SecondaryCLIL
PublicUpper
SecondaryNotCLIL
PrivateUpper
SecondaryCLIL
PrivateUpper
SecondaryCLIL
PrivateUpper
SecondaryCLIL
Age
24
33
30
36
34
27
Experience
2 years
6 years
7 years
10 years
9 years
1 year
Subject
Chemistry
Chemistry
Chemistry
Chemistry
Chemistry
Chemistry
Educational
Background
B.S. in
Teaching
Chemistry
Integrated
BS&MS in
Teaching
Chemistry
Integrated
BS&MS in
Teaching
Chemistry
Integrated
BS&MS in
Teaching
Chemistry
& M.S. in
Chemistry
Education
Integrated
BS&MS in
Teaching
Chemistry
B.S. in
Teaching
Chemistry
Number of texts
7
6
5
7
5
6
Grade/age-level
of the texts
Grade 9
/Age 14-15
Grade 10/
Age 15-16
Grade 11/
Age 16-17
Grade 11/
Age 16-17
Grade 9
/Age 14-15
Grade 9
/Age 14-15
1/EA-TR
I first contacted the teachers at the end of May 2023, and I collected about half of the data until July 15,
2023. Over the summer, I took a break to collect data. Before the break, some of the teachers would not
complete the data process even if they promised to do so. Then, in October I contacted these teachers
once again as well as contacting some new teachers whom I did not get in touch with before.
I invited the participant teachers to the study through emails. In the first email, I briefly introduced the
CLILNetLE project as well as explaining the goal of surveying teachers’ expectations, that is how students
verbally communicate information conveyed through visual semiotics used for teaching and learning of
particular concepts/ideas in different scientific disciplines, such as chemistry. I also provided information
about how to select a textbook and what criteria need to be considered while selecting semiotic visual
elements from a particular textbook. I asked them to select 5 to 8 visual elements from the textbook
they like and send the electronic copy of such visual elements to me. They usually immediately return to
my emails confirming that they would send the visuals in a couple of days or so. Once they sent the
visual elements, I checked if they were conceptually rich or not. The visuals were mostly good in terms
of representing the certain science content. I placed the visual elements into the template in the form of
a doc file.
In the second email, I provided the teachers with information about what they are supposed to do with
these visual items, which was sent as a doc file. I summarized the task expectations in the email in
Turkish, and I also attached the task instruction file in English. I clearly mentioned that they would write
a text in relation to each visual item such that they like their students to express in writing as a good
verbal representation of each particular semiotic visual element. I offered two sample texts as examples
concerning two semiotic visual elements related to biology content. In the emails, I also set the deadline
for returning their written texts, about a two-week period. If they did not send their written texts on
time, I kindly sent them an email as a reminder along with extending the timeline two more weeks to
complete.
As the teachers completed their written texts, they did not turn to me with any questions, and all of
them submitted their texts in an acceptable form in terms of length and content. Thus, I considered that
the task instructions were easy to follow and understand for teachers.
A total of 36 semiotic texts were submitted by the six teachers. The number of texts that individual
teachers provided changed in between five to seven (see Table 1). The individual text lengths ranged
from 81 words to 162 words, and the word count of half of the texts were 119 and above.
3. The findings
Teacher E has written five (5) semiotic texts in relation to semiotic visual elements (SVE) she selected
from the book as cited: “Brown et al. (2021). Chemistry the central science in SI units, 15th Global
Edition. Harlow, Pearson.” Such SVEs were about the topic of nature matter and intermolecular bonds.
More specifically;
(a) SVE 1 represents how the physical properties of substances change with respect to the
intermolecular forces which depend on the surface area of molecules, providing molecular
representations of two different substances, pentane (linear molecules) and dimethyl propane
(spherical molecules). These two substances include the same number of carbon and hydrogen
(C5H12) but such atoms are arranged differently, generating two different substances.
(b) SVE 2 graphically shows the change in boiling points of covalent hydrides of elements in Group
4A, 5A, 6A and 7A with respect to changing molecular weight. In fact, this is a frequently used
2/EA-TR
representation in the textbooks to illustrate how the boiling point of substances with hydrogen
bonds change as a function of the strength of hydrogen bonds existing in between the
molecules of these substances. The strength of hydrogen bonds depends on the
electronegativity of nonmetal elements covalently bonded to hydrogen and also the molecular
weight of covalent hydrides such as water, ammonia, hydrogen chloride etc.
(c) SVE 3 represents the hydrogen bonds existing in between the various molecules such as two
water molecules, two ammonia molecules, one ammonia and one water molecule etc. by
utilizing open chemical formulas of such molecules.
(d) SVE 4 represents Rutherford’s alpha-scattering experiment together with how the beam of
alpha particles behave as they interact with gold atoms.
(e) SVE 5 shows the changing atomic size of elements across Group 1A, Group 2A, Group 3 A, Group
6A, Group 7A in the periods of 2, 3, and 4 at the periodic table. In addition, along with the size of
element atoms (neutral atoms), it pictorially illustrates the type of ion (cation or anion) each
element atom is likely to produce as well as size of such ions.
When we examine the CDFs across the semiotic texts accompanied with the five semiotic visual
elements, the most frequently observed CDFs are the describe (DS:10) and the explain (EA:12) followed
with the define (DF: 4), report (RE: 3) and categorize (CA: 2). The CDFs namely explore and evaluate did
not appear across the texts (see Figure 1). The CDF of describe appeared once in each SVE but SVE 5
included an episode of describe along with 5 basic elements of describe embedded into the whole
episode (see Dalton-Puffer et al., 2018 for distinction between basic and episode level). In fact, the
frequency of such CDF elements are consistent with the science education literature, because students’
quality of scientific explanations about a particular science concept indicate the complexity of their
learning (de Andrade, 2019; Tang, 2016). Moreover, when we look at the percentages of words allotted
for each CDF emerged from the data, there appears to be consistency between how often each CDF is
identified across the five texts and how extensive each CDF is across five texts in terms of word count.
About 70% of semiotic texts showed the characteristics of explain and describe, whereas only about 30%
of semiotic texts indicated the features of report, define and categorize functions.
Frequency of CDFs
Report
18%
Categorize Define
3%
8%
12
10
8
Describe
31%
De
fin
e
De
sc
rib
e
Ex
pl
ain
Re
po
rt
Ex
pl
or
e
Ev
al
ua
te
Ca
te
go
riz
e
6
4
2
0
Explain
40%
Figure 1. The frequency of CDFs across five semiotic texts (left) and the percentages of CDFs in terms of
word count (right)
SVE 1 is identified as an explain function in the episode level (EA), it includes 4 different explain
functions and one describe function in the basic level. Teacher E starts by stating that the physical
3/EA-TR
properties of substances depend on the strength of intermolecular forces existing in between the
particles. This sets the stage for the explain function (EA1) because this is the main conceptual focus of
SVE1. She then introduces the semiotic visual element, describing what it is (DS1). This visual element
contains two molecules of n-pentane, which has a linear molecular structure and two molecules of 2,2
dimethyl propane, which is called neopentane with a spherical molecular structure. Even if such
substances have two different molecular structures, they consist of the same number of carbon and
hydrogen atoms (C5H12), implying the same molecular mass. The CDF of describe follows with an explain
(EA2) such that the sentence starts with “since” dependent clause, stating that due to the nonpolar
nature of these two substances, there exists only London forces in between the molecules of each one.
This one follows with another basic level CDF explain (EA3) with one more dependent clause (although).
This sentence justifies why these two substances have different boiling points, referring to the
differences in the shape of molecules of each substance. The final two sentences are also coded as the
basic level explain function (EA4). The text shows the sequential reasoning in a cause-and-effect manner
with a dependent “when” clause, asserting that the linear molecules create larger contact areas and
result in having strong intermolecular interactions. In relation to this one, there is one more expression
with correlative conjunction such that the stronger the interactions are between the molecules, the
higher the boiling points of substances would be.
SVE 2 is coded as an explain function in the episode level (EA), consisting of 3 explain functions in the
basic level. Yet, there is also a describe function apart from the episode level explain function. Teacher E
begins with the introduction of the semiotic visual, describing the variables represented in the graph:
molecular weight of substances versus their boiling points (DS1). This follows with two sequential
sentences, which are coded as an explanation function in the basic level (EA1). The first one indicates
the trend in between the molecular weight of hydrides of group 14 elements and their boiling points.
The second one further elucidates, including the phrase “in other words” as a connection in addition
with a “when” dependent clause to provide reason for why there is such a trend between these two
variables for the particular group of elements. Afterwards, there is a nice move to an extraordinary
trend in the graph with the conjunctive adverb “however” following with “when” dependent clause. This
one refers to the unexpected trend in a descriptive manner, but this one is connected with the “this is
because” phrase, providing a reason for why particular substances like water, ammonia and hydrogen
fluoride have higher boiling points compared to the others. These two sentences are considered as the
CDF of explain in the basic level (EA2). The last basic level CDF, namely explain function further states
how the substances including hydrogen with highly electronegative elements of nitrogen, oxygen and
fluorine creates molecules with high dipole moments (EA3). Overall, there are distinct moves in between
basic level CDF explain functions, with proper conjunctive words and phrases, as well as dependent and
independent clauses. Such sequential sentences are presented in a cause-and-effect manner, largely
making the semiotic text as the explain function at the episode level.
SVE 3 included no particular episode level CDF. However, this semiotic text consists of some basic level
CDF functions as: one categorize, four define, and one describe. Teacher E first categorizes the
electrostatic interactions as intramolecular and intermolecular forces into two groups (CA1). Then, she
defines the intramolecular forces as strong forces that keep the atoms together within a molecule,
utilizing the verb of “to be” (DF1). Then, she defines the specific intramolecular forces called covalent
bonds as part of intramolecular forces, using the verb “to be” (DF2). Afterwards, she switches to define
intermolecular forces as weak forces, including the verb “to be” (DF3). In order to indicate the transfer
from one term to another, she utilizes the conjunctive adverb “however” before the new CDF of define.
As a subsequent term, she defines a specific intermolecular force called hydrogen bonding, including the
verb “to be” in the sentence once again (DF4). In the final sentence, she describes what is illustrated in
the SVE3 without directly indicating that this is shown in the visual, utilizing the phrase “in this figure”
4/EA-TR
(DS1). The semiotic text starts with the CDF categorize, then the following sentences define the
categories from general to specific, and the last sentence tells about what the visual represents us in
terms of occurrence of hydrogen bonding.
SVE 4 consists of one describe function, one report function, one categorize function, and three explain
functions in the basic level. In addition, there were observed two report functions at the episodic level.
The semiotic text begins with the CDF of describe (DS1), which tells about what the semiotic visual
element shows. Then, there is an episodic level report function (*RE1e) that provides information about
how Rutherford performed the experiment as well as telling about the number of distinct observations
he made (CA1). Afterwards, the semiotic text just directly reports the nature of three unique
observations from the experiment as statements by utilizing the past tense (RE1). This one follows with
another episodic level report function (RE2e) which contains three basic level explain functions (EA1-2-3)
as a list in sequence. In fact, each explain function involves the interpretation of experimental
observations, in other words, reporting of conclusions drawn from the observational data. Such explain
statements included the inferences from the observations are either connected with “because” or
involved a “which” clause with the indicator word “cause”. These “which” clauses provided further
information about the reasons for such inferences.
SVE 5 indicated the characteristics of describe function in the episode level. This particular episode
included five describe functions in the basic level, which make the whole text as the CDF of describe at
the episode level. The text starts with a general introduction of the visual element with including the key
indicator “this table shows…” for the describe function. The subsequent 4 describe functions refer to the
major trends shown in the figure about the size of atoms and ions in the periodic table. The
fundamental indicator of describe function in each sentence are either “as a general trend” or “as we
can see” phrases. This text is a kind of verbal description of a visual image, which is already observed
when the image is examined.
4. Conclusion
The findings showed that the CDFs are frequently shaped with respect to the nature of the visual
element. For example, VSE 1-2 represented the conceptual ideas, so that the texts employed the explain
function both in the episode and basic level with proper linguistic clauses and connecting words. VSE 3,
however, involved the categorization and definition of such categories without representing dominant
CDFs in the episode level. VSE 4 involved the well-known experiment of Rutherford, which paved the
way for the construction of the current atomic model, thus the report function properly utilized for this
particular text. The VSE 5 explicitly illustrates the changes in the columns and the periods of periodic
table, therefore the text represents the features of describe function with suitable verbs and indicator
phrases.
Based on the findings, the most frequently observed CDFs are the explain and describe functions, and
the majority of texts (71%) allotted to these two functions following with report, define and categorize
functions. However, the CDFs of explore and evaluate are missing for this particular case. In fact, the
dominance of particular CDF functions across the five texts somehow represents the central goals of
science teachers and science curricula around the world for teaching science as they intend to produce
disciplinary literate citizens.
----------------------------Note: * e refers to the episodic level.
5/EA-TR
5. References
Dalton-Puffer, C., Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Brückl-Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L., &
Lechner, L. (2018). Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL lessons: towards an empirical
validation of the CDF Construct. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 5–29.
de Andrade, V., Freire, S., & Baptista, M. (2019). Constructing scientific explanations: A system of
analysis for students’ explanations. Research in Science Education, 49(3), 787–807.
Tang, K-S. (2016). Constructing scientific explanations through premise–reasoning–outcome (PRO): an
exploratory study to scaffold students in structuring written explanations. International
Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1415-1440.
6/EA-TR
Reflections Using the Teachers’ Expectation Tool: Turkey
Yavuz Kurt
Marmara Unversity, Istanbul Turkey
1. The contributions
By using the “Teachers’ Expectation Tool”, I collected data from four teachers working in the Turkish
educational context. All teachers were working at lower secondary state schools. Three of them were
history teachers and one was an English as a foreign language teacher. Each teacher provided five
pieces of text for our pilot study. Table 1 below summarizes the characteristics of the teachers and
the educational context they provided data for.
Table 1. Characteristics of the data
Participants
Experience
in years
Subject
Grade
School type
Target group
age
Teacher 1
11
History
6-7
State
11-12
Teacher 2
17
History
8
State
13-14
Teacher 3
17
History
8
State
13-14
Teacher 4
13
Foreign Language
8
State
13
None of the school contexts from where the data was collected implemented CLIL. Therefore, the
history teachers received instructions and provided texts in Turkish to indicate their expectations
while the English teacher completed the task in English. The three history teachers chose semiotic
items from a variety of topics including the history of the Turkish Revolution, early Turkish states in
Central Asia, migration of Turks from Central Asia, and geographical discoveries by European
countries during the 15th and 16th centuries. The topics chosen by the English teacher were also
diverse, including science, technology, online shopping, and friendship.
2. The process of data collection
I contacted Teachers 1, 2, and 3 online and Teacher 4 face-to-face. In each case, I requested the
teachers to read the instructions and ask for clarifications if they needed any. All teachers requested
clarification for the various challenges they faced in understanding and completing the task.
First, the three history teachers found it challenging to understand what exactly is meant by
"semiotic elements" (i.e., a key phrase in the instructions) in the context of history education.
Second, I had to verbally clarify to each teacher what the task asked for; therefore, I feel that
“imagining writing for an exam” was confusing for the teachers as they are used to creating exams,
not imagining student responses. Finally, and in connection with the previous challenge, one teacher
found it difficult to determine what constitutes "good writing" for a specific age group. She asked
whether she should write a perfect response or intentionally place mistakes in her response. It seems
that the hypothetical situation we wanted to create for teachers to elicit their responses is unusual
and somehow challenging for them to imagine.
1/YK-TR
First of all, my experience was that face-to-face interaction with the teacher highly facilitates the task
communication process and quickly clarifies the confusion they have. Sole dependence on task
instructions might cause problems and confusion, negatively affecting the validity of the data. Based
on my experiences of using the “Teachers’ Expectation Tool”, I would modify a few things on the
tool. First, I would provide examples or a brief explanation of what is meant by "semiotic elements"
in the context of different disciplines’ education to help teachers better understand the task. Second,
and potentially in addition to the current procedure, I would try alternative ways of collecting data
about teacher expectations and see how they would work. One way, for example, could be providing
a sample student response for them to analyze and correct, instead of asking teachers to imagine
writing an exam answer as if they were students. This may, of course, cause other unprecedented
problems, but to find and explore optimal methods, we should try and test alternatives. Finally,
regarding the current version of task instructions, I thought that some modifications to the wording
could also make it easier for teachers. If we give instructions to the teachers in the form of simple
steps, they may have less confusion. For example, the instructions could be based on the following
structure:
i)
choose a useful semiotic element you use for teaching,
ii) imagine you are a good student,
iii) as a good student, what would you write about this semiotic element?
3. The findings
For the purpose of this report, I focus on Teacher 4’s data only, i.e., the English language teacher who
provided five pieces of text based on semiotic elements she chose from the 8th-grade ELT textbook
which is commonly used across state schools in Türkiye. I had the chance to talk with her about the
data she provided, and I sporadically integrated her comments into this part.
Teacher 4 chose semiotic items from four different units of the textbook, which, as she explained,
was because the texts she would produce based on visuals from the same unit would be repetitive. I
think the fact that the texts belong to different units is an advantage because it allows seeing the
teacher’s disciplinary-literacy-related expectations regarding different themes and different linguistic
skills. Information on the five texts is presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Characteristics of the texts
Semiotic element
Word count
Target level
Theme of the unit
Topic
1
88
A2
In the kitchen
Making a pizza
2
94
A2
Science
Life of Stephan Hawking
3
82
A2
The Internet
Sending e-mails
4
119
A2
The Internet
Online shopping
5
141
A2
Friendship
Meeting with a friend
While the level of the texts seems appropriate for the target age group and proficiency level, it was
interesting that, in one case, the teacher wrote a dialogue rather than prose. The semiotic element
associated with this case was a series of three pictures illustrating one friend visiting the other and
2/YK-TR
making a plan to see a movie. Therefore, the teacher expects students to engage in a dialogue, rather
than describe the visual. Based on the text Teacher 4 provided, we understand that the dialogue
requires linguistic functions such as suggesting, accepting, refusing, talking about likes and dislikes,
and thanking. These functions cannot be elicited through prose describing the visual in a storytelling
format. Teacher 4 later confirmed that her expectation with this visual was that students get
prepared for and involved in verbal dialogue and successfully use these linguistic functions.
Additionally, this dialogue shows an interaction between two people, demonstrating social
communication and turn-taking. Therefore, by providing a dialogue rather than prose, the teacher
might be expecting students to have such social skills as well. This appears to be typical EFL
instruction, i.e., being focused on everyday interactions and how to successfully manage social life.
To explore to what extent this EFL teacher also expects content-based literacy skills, these texts were
also analyzed through the lens of Cognitive Discourse Functions (Dalton-Puffer, 2013) by applying the
coding manual presented in section 3.2. of this report. When we look at the data from the
perspective of CDF, we observe that evaluation (EV) is the most frequent CDF (see Figure 1). Out of
the 13 instances of EVs, eight were in the dialogue text (Text 5), indicating that Teacher 4 expected
students to use evaluative sentences when they engaged in a conversation with a friend to arrange
an outside activity. Therefore, evaluative sentences are associated with certain linguistic functions
that students are expected to use to discuss likes and dislikes, suggest a social activity, and accept or
refuse suggestions.
From a content perspective, ELT in this context does not have clear disciplinary content criteria
associated with other courses such as Mathematics, Science, or History. However, in parallel with the
aims of the textbook, Teacher 4's expectations align with real-world needs and applications that
enable functioning effectively in various contexts. For example, the biographical text about Stephen
Hawking not only requires linguistic accuracy but also an understanding of scientific achievements
and their historical context. Similarly, the process of shopping online integrates financial literacy and
digital competence, which are essential skills in modern life. Finally, the instructions for sending an
email incorporate technological skills necessary for academic and professional communication. Each
task is justified by its relevance to the students' daily lives and future academic or professional needs.
These justifications underscore the importance of integrating content knowledge with language skills
to enhance overall learning effectiveness and prepare students for diverse communicative contexts.
Figure 1. Number of CDF instances (left) and their percentages in terms of word count (right).
The other CDFs were significantly less frequent in terms of the number of instances. However, when
we look at how much space they take (word counts) in the texts produced by the teacher, we
observe a different picture. As seen on the right side of Figure 1, most of the texts were descriptive in
function. This was largely due to the three texts that described a series of actions in the form of
3/YK-TR
imperative sentences, one describing the steps of making a pizza (Text 1), one describing how to
send homework as an attachment through e-mail (Text 3), and the other describing the steps of
shopping online (Text 4). Therefore, one prominent feature of these descriptions was the central role
of “command verbs” as part of imperative sentences. For example, in the case of Text 1, the focus
was on verbs such as slice, fry, add, grate, and bake, while in the case of Text 3, the focus was on
login, click, type, choose, double click, upload, and send. These verb choices also clearly show a
connection to the theme of the texts and are, in fact, quite specific to the vocational fields of cooking
and IT. Moreover, these two texts were also similar to each other also in terms of how they
incorporate connecting words that indicate the temporal relationship between activities. This shows
how Teacher 4 expects the students to make use of such words as first, next, after that, and now to
create continuity when describing the steps of a task. Text 4, which describes the steps of online
shopping, however, was not similar to the other two in that respect because it did not involve such
connecting words. When I asked Teacher 4 why she ignored connecting words in the case of Text 4
and provided the steps of online shopping by listing sentences one under the other, she responded,
I did not intentionally keep out the connecting words in Text 4. I guess I felt that it was not
important when talking about online shopping. It is kind of optional for students. I would not
necessarily expect them to use connecting words each time they describe how to do
something. (Teacher 4)
This explanation was interesting because it shows that interpreting the expectations of teachers
solely based on such texts is difficult and might be incomplete. In the absence of Teacher 4’s
comment above, one can easily think that connecting words is important for students when they are
discussing certain topics, but not as much with others. However, in reality, the teacher thinks the
absence or existence of connecting words is not important. This raises a methodological question,
i.e., whether follow-up interviews should be an integral part of such data collection.
Dalton-Puffer et al. (2018) suggest that episode-level CDFs are extended segments of speech that
fulfill a single overarching communicative purpose. These episodes can be comprised of smaller CDFs,
which are considered basic level. In the current data, episode-level CDFs were observed in all of the
texts, except Text 5 which was in the form of a dialogue. For example, Texts 1, 3, and 4 were wholeparagraph episode-level descriptions that involved basic-level CDFs such as explanation, evaluation,
and exploration. In the following extract from Text 3, the teacher uses the explore function within the
description.
Choose the file from your computer or your mobile phone. Double-click the file and upload it
to your e-mail. You can also write your message if you want. Now, you can send it.
With the sentence “You can also write your message if you want”, Teacher 4 offers a further option
that can be used when sending an attachment with an email. This alternative course of action is
presented with the modal verb “can” which signals optionality here. It seems that the students are
not just expected to describe how to use a computer to send a file in a simple manner, they are also
expected to discuss alternative actions and choices when needed, which adds intricacy and
complexity to the communicative message. However, it is also noteworthy that this was the only
explorative statement in the data from Teacher 4, which might imply that the function of exploration
is expected, but to a very limited degree.
On the other hand, Text 2 was an episode-level report that involved basic-level evaluations. For
instance, while reporting the life of the late scientist Stephan Hawking with factual descriptive
sentences such as “He studied physics at Oxford University” and “He won many prizes and medals”,
the teacher used evaluative sentences such as “He was a great scientist” and “He had a successful
4/YK-TR
life”. This indicates that Teacher 4 expects students to be able to make comments about people
based on what they did. Some of the adjectives Teacher 4 used in Text 2, for example, include
brilliant, great, determined, and hardworking. Therefore, students are expected to make such
evaluations using certain adjectives that describe personal characteristics.
Finally, it is also interesting how some CDFs were quite frequent while others were largely missing.
Considering that these texts were produced from the perspective of 8th-grade students who have
A2-level English proficiency, it is possible to attribute the frequency of CDFs such as describing and
evaluating over exploring and explaining to pedagogical and developmental factors.
Although all CDFs can take sophisticated complex forms, at this level of proficiency, describing and
evaluating usually require lower cognitive and linguistic demands compared to exploring and
explaining. 8th-grade foreign language learners who are at the A2 level of language proficiency can
handle describing objects, people and processes, and expressing opinions or preferences more
comfortably. Students are not required to show a performance beyond that; for example, by
providing convincing justification for one’s stance. On the other hand, exploring and explaining
functions necessitate a higher level of abstract thinking and more complex language structures, such
as cause-and-effect relationships, hypotheses, and detailed reasoning. These might be challenging
for learners who are still building their language foundations. Furthermore, while describing and
evaluating impose a lower cognitive load and allow students to focus more on language use rather
than struggling with content complexity, the exploring and explaining functions can be cognitively
demanding because they require critical thinking, hypothesizing, and synthesizing information.
A further explanation can be made from a pedagogical perspective. Description activities usually help
learners practice essential vocabulary (e.g., adjectives, nouns) and basic grammatical structures (e.g.,
present simple, imperatives). Similarly, evaluative tasks at this proficiency level often involve simpler
structures such as opinion phrases and comparative structures, which are essential for expressing
personal views and preferences. It should be pointed out, however, that at higher proficiency levels,
the process of evaluation, i.e., taking a stance and convincingly justifying it, is typically fairly complex,
both linguistically and cognitively. Likewise, exploring and explaining often require learners to use
more sophisticated vocabulary and complex sentence structures (e.g., subordinating conjunctions,
passive voice), which, as Teacher 4 explains, are not yet the primary focus at this stage of language
learning.
The emphasis on describing and evaluating over exploring and explaining in these texts aligns with
the developmental and pedagogical needs of 8th-grade foreign language learners. This approach
ensures that students are not overwhelmed, while gradually building their language proficiency and
preparing them for more complex cognitive discourse functions in future learning stages.
4. Conclusion and implications
In conclusion, the study using the “Teachers’ Expectation Tool” provided valuable insights into
teacher expectations in the Turkish educational context. The analysis of Teacher 4’s texts revealed a
strong emphasis on practical and real-world applications of language skills, reflecting the goals of the
ELT curriculum in state schools. The findings indicate that while the tasks largely focused on
describing and evaluating, they also demonstrated an implicit expectation for students to develop
social communication skills through dialogue.
The challenges encountered by teachers in understanding and completing the tasks suggest the need
for clearer instructions and potentially alternative methods of data collection, such as providing
5/YK-TR
sample responses for analysis. This pilot study suggests that follow-up interviews could be beneficial
in clarifying teachers' expectations and improving the validity of the data. Overall, the research
emphasizes the importance of aligning educational tools and methods with the disciplinary literacy
related needs of students, which can ensure that language learning remains relevant and effective in
preparing students for real-world communication.
5. References
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising contentlanguage integration in CLIL and multilingual education. EuJAL, 1(2), 216–253.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Brückl-Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L., &
Lechner, L. (2018). Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL lessons: towards an
empirical validation of the CDF Construct. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 5–29.
https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0028
6/YK-TR
Teachers’ expectations of learners’ learning in Italy. Analysis of two teachers’
assumptions on: 1) Physics and 2)English
Lucilla Lopriore
Roma Tre University & TESOL Italy
1. Introduction
The following report presents two case studies part of a larger project investigating what teachers of different
disciplines, working at diverse school levels and contexts, would expect their average good learners to have
learnt of the subject they study, as a result of their studies. The design was mostly aimed at finding out how
learners communicate information contained in multi-disciplinary semiotic elements (visuals, figures, maps,
photos), not always present in a coursebook. It was thus agreed that teachers were going to be asked to find
5-8 semiotic visual elements (SVEs) that they would traditionally use to teach specific disciplinary themes at
different classroom levels.
The research design adopted for this type of study implied the recognition of the type of those
cognitive discourse functions (CDFs) (Dalton-Puffer & Bauer-Marschallinger, 2019) students would use when
they report what they had learnt as well as the CDFs‘supposed relevance for learning.
The design also implied the identification of those disciplines where CDFs are expected to be more frequently
used by learners and understand their role for learning, and to find a number of teachers of those subjects
who would agree on participating to the study.
An important step in this research was represented by the novelty of this type of study and by the
need to understand the rationale and the functioning of the tool to be used as well as to learn from its use.
Our diverse teaching and research traditions and experiences, when adopting a new approach in investigating
how learning takes place, might generate some friction with previously endorsed research procedures. It was
thus quite important for both researchers and participating teachers to try out this type of approach,observe
its functioning and discuss its pedagogical implications .
2. Participants‘ selection and the process
At the beginning of the study, since the team had to identify a number of teachers in each country willing to
be part of the study, I got in touch with a group of teachers – from primary to upper secondary schools selected among those I had met in teacher education courses (both CLIL and EFL), or in research projects.
These teachers (English, History, Physics, Mathematics), once informed about the study, declared their
interest in carrying out the task and accepted to be part of the investigation. The disciplines identified for
this research study were in the end Physics and English as a a Foreign Language (EFL) and four teachers were
invited to a preliminary colloquium.
During the preliminary meeting, the procedure was explained, it would have involved teachers‘ use of
semiotic visual elements (SVEs) used to elicit their learners’ responses to a subject specific task. Learners‘
supposed responses had to be saved by teachers in writing. Unfortunately, not all teachers managed to
participate, some primary teachers were the first ones to withdraw, mainly for time reasons. Some primary
and upper secondary school teachers later on volunteered to carry out the task after the summer, if the
investigation had continued. And this might be considered in the future an opportunity to refine the
investigation.
I chose among the teachers who had volunteered – initially four, then reduced to two – those who had
confirmed their participation - who taught two subjects I was mostly interested in - English and Physics – both
subjects where SVEs are frequently used. Among the reasons for choosing these two disciplines there were
both the fact that in Physics I expected CDFs to be more frequently used, and that I am not an expert in
Physics, as well as the fact that being myself an English teacher, I was also interested in how the CDFs worked
in the learning of a foreign language.
1/LL-IT
The two teachers –presented in Table 1 – were experienced teachers and teacher educators, had
been involved in CLIL experiences even if not at the time of the study. They had a sound educational
background and taught in two different but subsequent school levels: lower and upper secondary schools,
thus I would have had the opportunity to observe CDFs use at diverse learning ages and experiences. The
two teachers - MCC and MAC - had both attended a number of disciplinary and cross-disciplinary teacher
education courses in Italy and abroad, they had been involved as teacher educators themselves and had been
part of a number of research groups in their field of study, Mathematics & Physics and English; one of them
was also a coursebook author. They also taught in the same Italian region, similar, and possibly comparable,
school populations, and, last but not least, the Physics teacher’s confidence in using English in her previous
experience in CLIL further confirmed my choice.
Table 1. Demographic information of participants
Teachers
Age
School Level
MCC
MariaCristina
55
MAC
MariaAngela
62
Italian State Upper
secondary school,
Scientific Lyceum,
(partly CLIL);
Town North. Italy
State Lower Second.
School 3rd yr. (Non
CLIL).
Small town in
Northern Italy
Educational
Background
-Nuclear Physics
Degree
Teach.
Exper.
27
-Foreign lang.
Degree
-MA TEFL (UK)
-PhD Linguistics
(Italy)
32
Subject
Teacher education
Mathematics&
Physics
Attended pre-& in-service
Teach.Ed , projects & CLIL
courses
English as a
Foreign
Language (EFL)
Attended & led numerous inset Teach.Ed courses eTwinning exchanges;
EFL Coursebook author
3. The process
The first encounters were carried out separately with each teacher starting in the last week of April 2023,
while other encounters took place at the end of May 2023, and completed at the end of October 2023.
Following the agreed protocol, the teachers were individually interviewed, presented with the task and asked
to sign their willingness to participate. When they were initially presented with the task, I told each teacher
that we were carrying out a pilot study on the kind of language they would expect students to use when they
present something complex that they had learnt.
3.1 Adjusting to teachers’ disciplinary expectations and schemata
The most interesting aspects of the encounters with both teachers were those where, after my
introduction to the tasks, both teachers asked specific questions and raised a few issues that were discipline
specific and linked to their teaching habits and schemata.
MAC, the English teacher, in a lower secondary school (3yrs - learners’ age 11-14) underlined the fact
that SVEs were frequently used in her discipline for developing learners’ vocabulary and for eliciting and
enhancing learners’ spoken skills through either groupwork discussions or debates within languaging tasks.
This particular aspect was mentioned during the encounters when she was asked to report in writing what
she expected her average good learners would have produced. She raised the issue that her written account
would have been somehow different from her learners’ traditional spoken performances because the
communication channels used would have been different. She was also particularly concerned with learners’
differences from year 1 to year 3 both in terms of their L1 possible interference and of their L2 (English) use,
as well as of their cognitive development at that age. Another issue that was also raised concerned the
questions frequently used by foreign language teachers to elicit learners’ responses to a task, since they may
influence learners’ responses determining both the sequence of the narrative and of the language used. Her
position clearly emerges in the preamble to the text she produced for each SVE, where she added samples of
2/LL-IT
questions she would have asked learners to elicit their responses (ctrl. Samples of English Excerpts in section
4, Findings).
MCC, the Physics teacher, did not raise issues similar to those raised by MAC, rather she was much
more concerned with the fact that since her learners’ performances in Physics are almost always connected
with the use of SVEs, she did not measure her learners’ performance prevailingly in terms of their use of
language, whether written or spoken, but rather on accuracy of sequences, CDFs episodes, reports or
descriptions, or of appropriate terminology. This could not have been fully reported in her written account of
her learners’ presentations. Both teachers, even if with a different perspective, by ‘stepping into their
learners’ steps’, ‘authoring’ them, became much more aware of the close connection of language and
cognition. Both teachers identified and selected a number of authentic SVEs , coming either from
coursebooks, or from the web, as used in different school years, all saved with the source references, each
teacher then selected 6 SVEs for her discipline (Table 2).
Table2. Semiotic visual elements (SVEs)
Teachers
MCC
MariaCristi
na
PHYSICS 2.1
Yr:2 Age:15/16
PHYSICS 2.2
Yr:3
Age:16/17
PHYSICS 2.3
Yr:4
Age:16/17
PHYSICS 2.4
Yr: 5
Age:17/18
PHYSICS 2.5
Yr: 4
Age:16/17
PHYSICS 2.6
Yr.5
Age:17/18
SVEs
A normal
distribution curve,
graph showing
the numbers of
people of
different heights.
(Cutnell/ Johnson
Physics; Zanichelli)
Three diverse
graphs
representing the
position-time
graph of an object
moving in
uniformly
accelerated
motion.
(Hallyday’s
Phisics, 1
Zanichelli)
Picture of the
motion of the two
balls in the figure
compares the
motion along one
direction (the
vertical direction,
red ball) and the
motion in one
plane (vertical
and horizontal
direction, yellow
ball).
(Hallyday’s
Phisics, 2
Zanichelli)
Image of the
Anderson bubble
chamber In-depth
(material acquired
thanks to a
training activity
for Scientific
degrees in
collaboration with
the Faculty of
Physics, University
of Pavia)
Image: the effect
of diffraction that
results when a
wave encounters
obstacles that are
comparable in size
to its wavelength
and is explained
by Huygens'
principle
(fromWalker,Physi
cs, Theoretical
models& problem
solving. 2
Pearson)
The figure is
Ørsted's
experiment,
which highlights
the correlation
between electrical
and magnetic
phenomena.
https://www.aps.
org/apsnews/200
8/07/1820oerstedelectromagnetism
ENGLISH 2.1
Age:13
Yr: 3
CEFR: A2
ENGLISH 2.2
Age:13
Yr: 3
CEFR: A2+
ENGLISH 2.3
Age:11
Yr: 1
CEFR: A1
ENGLISH 2.4
Age:10/11
Yr: 1
CEFR: A1
ENGLISH 2.5
Age:2
Yr: 2
CEFR: A2
ENGLISH 2.6
Age:12
Yr: 2
CEFR:A1+A2
Picture of the
first computer
produced
Time: 1950s.
(from a 3rd yr
Course
Book,Make it,
CUP.)
The colour map
of Australia with
its internal
subdivisions.
(from a3rd yr
coursebook, High
Spirits, OUP)
A picture of a
student’s
bedroom, with
typical objects,
(1st
yr.coursebook,
Discover 1,
Pearson)
A double
picture of two
birthday
wishlist.with the
images of
possible
presents. (from
Discover 1 a 1st
yr course
Book, Pearson)
A map of
England with
visual journey
elements:
itinerary, plane,
train, bike,car,
price,duration,
distances.
(2nd yr
coursebook
Discover2,
Pearson)
A map of a
town with 22
pictures of
places &
activities that
may elicit the
learner to
narrate what
s/he did. (2nd
yr coursebook
Discover 2 ,
Pearson)
Teachers
MAC
MariaAngel
a Non-CLIL
school
SVEs
3. Findings
The main findings mostly concerned
a) Teachers’ personal responses to the task (see 3.1),
b) Teachers’ SVEs and expected text production,
3/LL-IT
c) the instances of CDFs for each subject contained in each of the produced texts and collected in the following
tables (3 and 4), and
d) my own responses to the investigation.
4.3.1 Teachers’ personal responses to the task
As already presented in section 3.1, teachers’ responses to a task on their expectations of the outcomes of
their teaching and of their learners’ learning that they were experiencing for the first time, were particularly
interesting because these teachers were asked , as mentioned before, to step into their learners’ shoes while
reflecting on their own daily activities. They raised some issues, they mostly asked clarification questions but,
mostly their comments and their questions were closely related to their reflections enacted by the task, on
their own teaching and to aspects of their teaching they had never experienced before. Interesting point to
be noted was the case of the English teacher (MAC), as she reported that when she administered part of the
same tasks as part of the year final test, two of her learners’ outcomes de facto matched her previously
expected text.
4.3.2 Teachers’ SVEs and expected text production,
Both MCC and MAC acknowledged the fact that they often use SVEs (Table 2) in their daily teaching but both
admitted that when they wrote the supposed learners’ texts, they were sometimes surprised by the
outcomes as they either reported that they probably had provided many more details than those contained
in the visual elements used. Yet, this task triggered more reflections on the cognition aspects elicited by
visuals more than the reading of texts.
4.3.3 Instances of CDFs for each subject contained in each of the produced texts (tables 3&4)
The tables 3&4 below report the CDFs present in the teachers’ accounts of their learners’ outcomes resulting
from the use of SVEs.
Table 3 – PHYSICS - Overview of CDFs
SVE_1
SVE_2
SVE_3
CATEGORIZE
✓
✓
DEFINE
✓
EP
✓
EP
✓
✓
DESCRIBE
EVALUATE
EXPLAIN
✓
✓
EXPLORE
REPORT
✓
✓
SVE_4
SVE_5
✓
EP
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
SVE_6
✓
✓
✓
✓
Table 4 – ENGLISH - Overview of CDFs
SVE_1
CATEGORIZE
DEFINE
✓
DESCRIBE
✓
EVALUATE
✓
EXPLAIN
EXPLORE
REPORT
SVE_2
SVE_3
✓
✓
SVE_5
SVE_6
✓
✓
EP
✓
✓
✓
SVE_4
✓
✓
✓
✓
EP
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
4/LL-IT
The two CDFs tables completion highlighted the differences among both subjects as well as the age
level and the teaching approaches adopted and the expected language produced. While the outcomes of
Physics expected ‘texts’ showed a more complex underlying interaction and use of the CDFs related to Physics
and to the ‘explain’ category, the EFL ‘texts’, in terms of language use, presented a prevailing presence of
‘describing’, ‘reporting’, and ‘evaluating’ CDFs, corresponding to the ‘expected’ EFL task outcomes also in
terms of ‘language chunks’.
There are differences in those CDFs that highlight learners‘ active learning processes directly
connected to their teachers‘ classroom work and to the type of tasks and activities daily used, but the use of
these CDFs is closely linked to the specificity of the discipline and to the continuity of the exposure to specific
approaches. This might suggest partly ‘rethinking’ the expected outcomes of both disciplines as well as of
their pedagogical approaches. Yes, but what and who does rethinking involve? These are aspects that should
be considered within initial teacher education programs, learners’age and each discipline expected outcomes.
The differences might be attributed to the specificity of each discipline and to the expected learners’
performance, even if - in both cases - the age difference represented a significant differentiating factor.
4.3.4 My response to the investigation & implications for future research
Even if this is a small-scale research, the findings emerging from the overall analysis as well as from the type
of CDFs present, prove the internal validity of the approach adopted and of the tools used. I was particularly
stimulated by the choice of two subjects so different particularly in terms of expected language production
and of cognitive reasoning.
At the beginning of the study, I was particularly concerned about the adoption of such an approach
to investigate learning episodes resorting to SVEs and to teachers’ own description of learners’ expected
production both in terms of disciplinary knowledge and of language use. Teachers’ ‘written’ description of
expected learners’ outcomes could have been biased by teachers’ individual experiences both in terms of
language use and of subject literacies.
As for linguistic expectations, most EFL texts reflect teaching traditions at lower secondary school
level mostly in terms of vocabulary knowledge, oracy and chunks, while the Physics texts include
nominalizations, passive voice, at times complex sentences and consistent control of tenses, in connection to
the types of visual input provided, but also to the use of written modes.
There are several aspects that might be considered for future research implications, they might be
related to the use of SVEs without limiting them to the use of images that could, for example, be represented
by specific videos, not always directly related to the discipline, in order to elicit learners’ responses also in
out-of-school contexts. Or else, the use of video-recordings of learners’ spoken interactions on specific
projects in groupwork, another aspect to be taken into consideration for the CDFs analysis.
This type of research demands for a reconsideration also of teacher education where disciplinary
literacies are very seldom explicitely presented and discussed in terms of learners’ cognition and
metacognition, and where emphasis is seldom posed on learners’ oracy. In this respect an innovative
approach would include the use of an interdisciplinary literacies approach. As one of the teachers said, we
need ‘rethinking’ teaching and teacher education and this can be done by stimulating learners’ ‘interthinking’
through oracy.
5/LL-IT
APPENDIXES
Only half of the excerpts (3 out of 6 for each subject) were chosen as examples of different levels of the
expected learners‘ responses for English and for Physics; they are reported below. The English excerpts are
preceded by the teacher’s comments on the context and on the instructions she would have given the
learners. This highlights the diverse contextualised support traditionally provided in EFL classrooms.
ENGLISH
Excerpt 2.1 (180 words) Level 3 lower secondary school, Age: 13 A2 level. The task would be presented after a class discussion
on the importance of technology and on ideas and desire for the students’ immediate future (next year’s school) and beyond (future
job) and it would look like this: Look at the picture of one of the first computers. What does it look like? Is it similar to what we use
today? Answer the question and add some information about your relationship with computers and technology in general, the types
of electronic gadgets you use, and what for. Will technology be important in your future school or job.
This picture looks like a wardrobe, a cupboard, or a big film projector, but it represents one of the first computers
produced. I think this picture was taken in the 1950s, because the woman is wearing clothes of that period. The
computer in the picture is very big and probably very slow. Today computers are much smaller and faster. I like computers
and electronic gadgets. I’ve got a desktop which I use at home, a tablet that I use at school for my projects and for my
electronic books, a smartphone, a smartwatch and a games console to play videogames online. I play with people from
many different countries, and we use English to communicate. I also use the Internet a lot, to study and to have fun. I
think I’m quite good at using technology and my dream is to become a software developer. If I pass the exam, next year
I’m going to a scientific high school where there are lots of computer science lessons. I also think technology will be very
important for everybody’s life. (Teacher MAC)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Excerpt 2.2 (250 words) Age:13 , level 3 lower secondary school, A2/A2+ level. The task would be that of describing the
map of Australia at first sight, without any previous discussion or presentation about the topic, answering the question:
Look at the following map. What do you understand about Australia? What would you like to know? Comment: The task would then
be meant to elicit previous knowledge and highlight focus points to develop during later lessons. It’s not so much a matter of showing
that the student has learnt the topic well but rather that he/she can use the language to show higher order skills. Even though the
language in itself is quite simple, it’s making inferences (this is probably why, which means, must be, I’ve heard), expressing opinions
(I think) and desire for further knowledge (I’d like to know more) that are taken into account here.
This is a map of Australia, a very big island located in the Southern Hemisphere. From the map I can see that it’s divided
into some big regions plus Tasmania, which is another smaller island south of Australia. There’s also the picture of the
Australian flag. It’s blue with some white stars and with the Union Jack in the top left corner. This is probably because
Australia was a British colony in the past. And I think this is why English is its official language. The main cities indicated
on the map are Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, and Melbourne on the east- and south-east coast, Perth in the south-west
and Darwin in the north. They are all along the coast or near the sea, which means that the land there is more fertile. I
can also see a bottle of wine, so Australia must be a wine-producing country. The town of Alice Springs is in the centre.
I’ve heard that there is a big desert there, and that there is an important rock formation. Then there are pictures of
typical animals like kangaroos and koalas, and sharks in the sea. I’d like to know more about them and also about the
Aborigines and their traditions. In fact, I see the symbols of a boomerang and of a typical Aboriginal musical instrument.
Other pictures in the map represent Sydney’s Opera House, which is a symbol of Australia in the world, and a diver near
the east coast where I can see corals. (Teacher MAC)
___________________________________________________________________________
Excerpt 2.3 (166 words) Age: 11, A1 level. This task would be carried out at the end of a vocabulary and grammar focus
on rooms and furniture, prepositions of place and the use of there is/are. The request would be the following:
Describe the room that you see in this picture. Do you like this room? Do you think it is a boy’s room or a girl’s room? Why? I would
expect a text like this from a very good 10 or 11 year- old student in a class 1 at lower secondary school. An expansion of this task
could be to ask for what IS NOT in the picture which the student has in his/her room.
This is the photo of a student’s bedroom. There is a bed on the right with a pillow, a blanket, and some cushions. There’s
a shelf above the bed and on it there are a lot of books. Next to the books there is a basket and a lamp. In the corner of
the room there’s a desk with some drawers. On the desk there are some pens and pencils and another lamp. Next to
the desk there’s a radiator, in the corner. Above the radiator, on the wall, there’s a bookcase with some books and other
objects. There’s also a chair in front of the desk. I think it’s comfortable. On the floor there’s a white rug and on the rug
there’s an armchair. Opposite the bed there’s a French window with some curtains. I think this room is OK. It’s small but
comfortable. I think it’s a girl’s room because it’s very tidy and for the flowers painted on the cushions and the curtain.
(Teacher MAC)
6/LL-IT
PHYSICS
Excerpt 2.3 (213 Words ). Yr.3, Age:16/17
The motion of the two balls in the figure compares the motion along one direction (the vertical direction, red
ball) and the motion in one plane (vertical and horizontal direction, yellow ball). The red ball and the yellow
ball fall from the same height but have different initial velocities. In describing the behaviour of the two balls,
friction with air is considered negligible. The red ball has zero initial velocity in both vertical and horizontal
directions, and its motion toward the ground is uniformly accelerated (free fall). The yellow ball has initial
velocity equal to zero in the vertical direction, but not in the horizontal direction, and it moves in the plane.
Its motion can be described as a superposition of two motions: uniform rectilinear motion in the horizontal
direction and free-fall motion in the vertical direction. The two balls were dropped at the same instant, and
the sequence of images shows that the vertical motion of the two balls (the uniformly accelerated, free-fall
motion) is identical because they both travel the same vertical distance in the same time interval. This means
that the horizontal motion does not influence the vertical motion of the yellow ball, and the vertical and
horizontal motions do not influence each other and are independent of each other. (Teacher MCC)
Excerpt 2.4 (228 words), Yr.4, Age 16/17
In the figure we can observe the effect of diffraction that results when a wave encounters obstacles that are
comparable in size to its wavelength and is explained by Huygens' principle that slits behave in turn as
sources of waves that propagate outward in all directions. Even light, upon encountering an obstacle
possessing two thin slits (thin in the sense of comparable to the size of the wavelength of light, order of
magnitude 10^(-7) m), produces diffraction. Young verified this behavior experimentally in the double-slit
experiment. By collecting light rays on a screen, interference figures with characteristic light and dark bangs
are observed. The bangs form because light rays from the slits interfere constructively where you have bright
spots, destructively where you have darkness. The constructive interference condition between wavelength
and distance d between the slits is as follows: d·sen =m
The angle depends on the distance y at which the bright spot is formed with respect to the central fringe
and the distance L between screen and double slit (tan =y/L).
The parameter m is an integer indicating the position of the fringe with respect to the central fringe (m=0).
By studying the geometrical characteristics of the interference figures, it is possible to determine the
wavelength of the light if the distance between the slits is known, or the distance between the slits if the
wavelength is known. (Teacher MCC)
________________________________________________________________________________
Excerpt 2.6 (242 words).Yr.5, Age 17/18
Young's double-slit experiment, demonstrates that light can behave as a wave. The wave model of light could
not explain some phenomena discovered in the early 1900s, such as blackbody radiation, the photoelectric
effect, and the Compton effect. The introduction of the quantum of energy, thanks to Planck, and the
description of light by photons, thanks to Einstein, explained these phenomena by assuming that light did not
always behave as a wave, but sometimes behaved as a particle (with zero mass). This idea laid the foundation
for the development of Quantum Mechanics and paved the way for a new way of interpreting the behavior
of nature such as De Broglie's: if light sometimes manifests corpuscular behaviors, why couldn't a particle
manifest wave-like behaviors? De Broglie derived the wavelength of a particle of mass m and velocity v:
=h/p, with h Planck's constant, p momentum of the particle. The image shows experimental confirmation
of De Broglie's hypothesis: constructive and destructive interference bangs are obtained from a beam of
electrons (particles) interacting with a diffraction grating (analogous to the double slit): at first it appears that
the electrons arrive on the screen randomly, but the final figure formed by the electrons is absolutely
analogous to what would be obtained with light. This result, a fundamental contribution of knowledge,
7/LL-IT
indicates that we can no longer describe nature with the categories of wave and particle, but must think
differently and introduce the concept of quantum object. (Teacher MCC)
References
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language
integration in CLIL and multilingual education. EuJAL, 1(2), 216–253.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Brückl-Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L., & Lechner, L.
(2018). Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL lessons: towards an empirical validation of the CDF
Construct. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0028
8/LL-IT
Reflections on Using the Teachers’ Expectations Tool: The Case of Serbia
Nataša Bakić-Mirić
The University of Priština’s School of Philosophy – Kosovska Mitrovica (Serbia)
1. The contributions
Texts samples that were used to complete Task 2 of the Part 3.3 of the WG3 Deliverable 7 were taken
from textbooks that are used by students during the freshmen year (age group: 19 years old) for the
following subjects: Mathematics 1, Strength of materials, Mechanics 1, Engineering materials,
Physics, Dynamics, Mathematics 1: Algebra. The data was collected from 10 professors working at a
public technical university in Serbia out of which two teach Mathematics 1, one teaches Mathematics
1: Algebra, two teach Physics, two teach Strength of materials, one teaches Engineering materials and
one teaches Dynamics and one teaches Mechanics 1. All of them have 15 to 30+ years of teaching
experience at the post-secondary level. They have also taught abroad and have published papers in
renowned international journals with Impact Factor. Each of the professors provided two to four
semiotic elements and explained at least one text example. The texts were translated from Serbian
into English. The university that they teach at is non-CLIL.
2. The process of data collection
The professors were contacted via email and then by phone for further explanation of the task. All of
them agreed to participate immediately since they had already participated in a CLIL project from
2019 until 2021. They found the task interesting and understandable. Initial communication with the
professors was straightforward but when their written tasks came in, I realized that they did not
understand what they were supposed to do. Instead of giving examples of “what kind of language a
good student should produce”, they generally wrote about their expectations about the subject. So, I
scheduled a Zoom meeting with all 10 of them and explained the task again. Thankfully, all agreed to
redo the task and this time the expectations set by WG3 were met. When I reflect on this task now, I
think that it is meant more for primary and secondary school than the post-secondary because
university students are more mature, already have certain language skills and are expected to use
academic and technical language at all times. This explains professors’ misunderstanding of the task
when it was first explained. In a way, I understand why they did it the way they did - it is because
they teach subjects that mostly deal with numbers and calculations and that that their expectations
are primarily this: good calculations result in good grades. Another explanation could be that at the
tertiary level, professors are experts in their respective fields, not trained educators. As such, they
might have little experience and training when it comes to reflecting on student outputs, and most
likely, they had probably never had to formulate what precisely they expect their students to
produce; a task primary or secondary teachers might be more familiar with.
3. The findings
The findings represent my reflections on the task. Just as I mentioned in the previous section,
professors at tertiary level expect their students to use academic and technical language throughout.
In most cases, these educators use simple language for very difficult concepts that they have to
explain to their students. Nonetheless, they expect their students to use technical language from day
one. Let us take into consideration the following example about shear forces expressed via stress. It is
explained in very understandable language in Serbian (Cyrillic alphabet) but with technical terms
(highlighted in red):
1/NBM-RS
Excerpt 1:
Истакнимо да у горњим једначинама десну страну израза знамо, а леву не. Дакле,
можемо да закључимо да се јавља проблем како да одредимо леви део ових израза,
односно, како да одредимо распоред напона по попречном пресеку. Сен-Венан је први
предложио поступак за решавање овог проблема, поступак који је касније назван
Сен-Венанов полуобртна метода а које се базира на:
- претпоставци о напoнима
- претпоставци о дефомрацијама, и
- вези напона и деформације (Хуков закон).
In English it reads:
Let's emphasize that in the above equations we know the right side of the expression but not
the left side. So, we can conclude that there is a problem of how to determine the left part,
that is, how to determine the distribution of stress in the cross section. Saint-Venant was the
first to propose a procedure to solve this problem, a procedure later called Saint-Venant's
half-reverse principle, which is based on:
- Assumptions about stress
- Assumptions about deformations and
- Relationship between stress and deformation (Hooke's law). (Professor DČ)
While most of the language seems quite general, students also have to master some technical terms
such elementary dysfunction of variables, disjunctive form, canonical elementary conjunction of
variables, perfect conjunctive normal form in relation to variability, etc. These are the terms that
cannot be simplified like the language in the example above.
Interestingly, all professors sent the examples in Serbian, which I had to translate (again) in English
and then return it to them so that they could check technical language. What they agreed on was
that it sounded more difficult in English then in Serbian even though Serbian language has 7 cases,
enclitics, logical subject, verbal aspects and two alphabets. This is probably because English is not
their native language.
When I reflect on what professors have produced, I can easily say that they have done a good job and
I am thankful to them for agreeing to redo the task.
Interestingly, two professors who teach Mathematics both sent their tasks, but one professor did not
provide examples of what he expects a good student should produce in terms of language while the
other one did. The professor who did not provide a language sample instead sent semiotic elements
and explained that the student who had mastered the material should be able to do most of the tasks
in Mathematics 1 without difficulty and use appropriate (technical) language. According to him, the
goal is to master the basics of linear algebra with analytical geometry and differential calculus by one
variable in a theoretical and practical sense. He did, however, list examples of technical language the
student is expected to produce, such as: Matrix calculus - Systems of linear equations - Vectors in
geometry and in coordinates - Lines and planes in the coordinate system - Curves and surfaces of the
second order - The concept of functions and elementary functions - Limes, properties and applications
- Derivatives and applications of the differential calculus - Taylor's polynomial - Parametrically defined
curves.
After the semiotic elements, he explained, that, “as it could be seen from the semiotic elements,
students are expected to know the procedure for solving problems, equations and calculations while
language is kept to a minimum”. He also indicated that that is what they consider good writing in
mathematics, which makes sense because for professors of mathematics, numbers are what words
are for professors of language and literature. Nonetheless, he did say that students are expected to
2/NBM-RS
use technical language that they acquire from textbooks as well as from professors and assistants
during lectures and discussions, such as: invertible matrix, square matrix, determinant, adjoint
matrix, regular and singular matrix, etc. (Professor MB)
The second professor who teaches Mathematics 1: Algebra said the same as the former professor,
namely that students are expected to familiarize themselves with the basic concepts of the following
areas: indefinite and definite integrals and their applications, differential calculus of real functions of
several real independent variables, differential equations of the first order. They should study
technical language that is used in mathematics such as: integral calculus, calculate the areas of flat
figures, the lengths of arcs of rectifiable early curves, the surfaces and volumes of rotating bodies,
partial derivatives of real and vector functions that depend on several independent real variables,
differential equations of the first order, namely: equations where the variables can be separated,
homogeneous and linear differential equations of the first order, Bernoulli's differential equation and
differential equations written in the form of a total differential, equations of orthogonal and isogonal
trajectories of one-parameter families of straight lines, etc.
In addition to these comments, she provided 4 semiotic elements and one example of what a good
student should produce in class and on the exam (in Latin alphabet; technical language is marked in
red):
Excerpt 2:
Diferencijalna jednačina je svaka jednačina u kojoj se javljaju nezavisno promenljiva x,
nepoznata funkcija y(x) i izvodi te funkcije. Opšti oblik ove jednačine je
F (x, y, y', ..., y (n)) = 0
(1.1.1)
Ovo je”obična” diferencijalna jednačina je nepoznata funkcija zavisi samo od jedne nezavisno
promenljive. Sem običnih, postoje i parcijalne diferencijalne jednačine kod kojih nepoznata
funkcija zavisi od više nezavisno promenljivih. Nadalje ćemo za diferencijalne jednačine
koristiti oznaku DJ. Red diferencijalne jednačine je red najvišeg izvoda koji se javlja u DJ.
Rešavanje diferencijalne jednačine je određivanje nepoznate funkcije y(x) koja se u njoj javlja.
Funkcija y(x) koja identički zadovoljava DJ (1.1.1) je rešenje (integral) diferencijalne jednačine.
Rešenje DJ (1.1.1) može da bude opšte, partikularno I singularno. (Professor DDD)
In English, the above paragraph reads:
A differential equation is any equation in which there are an independent variable x, a
discrete function y(x) and the derivative of those functions. The general form of the equation
is:
(1.1.1)
F (x, y, y', ..., y (n)) = 0
This is an "ordinary" differential equation because the unknown function depends on only one
independent variable. Apart from the ordinary ones, there are also partial differential
equations where the unknown function depends on several independent variables.
Furthermore, we will use the notation DE for differential equations. The order of a differential
equation is the order of the highest derivative that occurs in the differential equation. Solving
DE is determining the unknown function y(x) that appears in it. The function y(x) which
identically satisfies DE (1.1.1) is the solution (integral) of the differential equation. The
solution of DE (1.1.1) can be general, particular and singular.
3/NBM-RS
The professor indicated that, “as it is seen from her example, professional language is a must and this
is what we expect from our students to produce”. She stressed that the example sounds much
different in Serbian than in English, meaning that it sounds more difficult in English, which is the
students’ second language. She also pointed out that she likes to give examples from everyday life to
make classes more interesting (e.g. weather forecasting and climate change, economics and finance,
medicine and healthcare, environmental science etc.) during lectures and discussions because that is
a good way for freshmen to understand difficult concepts in math.
A third professor also did not send explanations of semiotic elements and language production, but
simply said that expectations from students attending the course Algebra and Linear Algebra is to
“acquaint students with the basics of mathematical logic, general and linear algebra and
mathematical analysis, combinatorics, graph theory, vector spaces and elements of analytical
geometry, as well as to enable students to effectively apply the acquired knowledge in professional
subjects”. (Professor MP)
As for language, the professor said that the students are expected to know calculations as well as
professional algebra language, which is not easy for students to learn in Serbian. Terms such as
elementary dysfunction of variables, disjunctive form, canonical elementary conjunction of variables,
perfect conjunctive normal form in relation to variability - take time to learn and, then, use on regular
bases during lectures and discussions.
Seven other professors sent explanations of the semiotic elements and what kind of language they
require from their students. The language they require is simple (to explain complex concepts) while
technical language in mathematical procedures and calculations is difficult (as seen from the
examples above).
4. Conclusion and implications
Generally, the professors who participated in this task have provided us with valuable insights.
Interestingly, all of them have agreed that technical language is a must and, implicitly, part and
parcel of their subject. Their initial misunderstanding of the task also implies that taking over the
perspective of students and imagining what they would produce is not something that crosses
subject specialists’ minds. They expected that technical language was mandatory, and they did not
feel the need to address or even realistically produce the language per se. Therefore, it is quite
obvious that professors at technical universities have high expectations from their students for both
technical knowledge and language. In short, they expect their students to use technical language
from day one.
I personally believe that task was meant more for the primary and secondary school then tertiary
level because university students are more mature, already have certain language skills and are
expected to use academic and technical language at all times. Nonetheless, and especially relating
these findings to the overall thrust of this COST project, it should be pointed out that not all students
absorb this type of language through osmosis but could benefit from more explicit instruction.
The fact that subject-expert professors misunderstood the task the first time about what kind of
language (except technical) they want their student to produce tells us that this is not something
they consider primary in their teaching, since it is expected from the start. Interestingly, these
professors could list examples and write about their expectations in general which is a clear indicator
that they seem aware of what type of language is needed to master their subject. These could be
good starting points for pedagogical interventions that help freshmen students meet the high
expectations of their professors that would further allow more growth in subject-specific literacy
throughout their tertiary education.
4/NBM-RS
3.5. SUMMARY OVERVIEW TASK-2: SURVEY OF TEACHERS’
EXPECTATIONS
While TASK-1 surveyed official curricular documents to understand curricular demands
regarding academic language and discipline-specific literacy/ies (DL), i.e. information which
is essential for policy makers, teacher educators, teachers, and ultimately for the students’
success in school and their future professional pursuits, TASK-2 sought the same
understanding by looking at “lived” expectations. Of course, curricular documents set official
baselines and are tools to generally communicate expectations between different
stakeholders. Yet, teachers’ actual expectations might, in fact, be more specific and even
differ from what is decreed in curricular documents. In any case, the teachers’ concrete
expectations affect what happens in a classroom and how learners develop to a
considerable extent (see Hattie, 2009). Consequently, the COST Action 21114
“CLILNetLE: CLIL Network for Languages in Education” also aimed to examine
teachers’ expectations of students’ productive disciplinary discourse. However, asking
(content) teachers directly about their expectations when it comes to DL skills is not as
straightforward, considering that “disciplinary literacy/ies” is a complex and, to some extent,
elusive concept. Therefore, TASK-2 intended to gauge their expectations in an indirect way
by letting educators put themselves in the shoes of their learners to compose a text they
expect a good student would produce in an examination setting to explain their
understanding of a semiotic prompt (e.g. an image, a graph, a diary entry, a cartoon etc.).
This was a task that many of our contributing teachers found very interesting and insightful,
but also rather challenging. While some younger teachers felt more comfortable doing this
task, as they had more recently practiced writing such texts in their studies, most
experienced teachers reported that the act of “writing like a student” was extremely unusual
for them and therefore tricky. Yet, it appears only logical that educators should be able to
produce what they expect good students to express, since clearly delineating one’s
expectations from students is not only essential for establishing the learning objective, it sets
the groundwork for structured and purposeful teaching towards these objectives. This brings
us to the first implication of our findings:
Implication No.1: Educators need to explicitly reflect on and make visible their
own expectations regarding students’ DL. In this regard, the Elicitation
Protocol of TASK-2 might be a very useful teacher-training tool for both
content and language teachers.
As pointed out in the report by Merita Hoxha (AL), all the teachers admitted that when in the
class, they mostly focus on their students absorbing the subject content rather than the use
of language. This task made them see the process of teaching and learning in a different
perspective. Similarly, Nataša Bakić-Mirić (RS) remarked in her report that, given the overall
thrust of this COST project, it should be pointed out that not all students absorb this type of
language through osmosis but could benefit from more explicit instruction. In her context, a
number of the tertiary Science or Mathematics professors she contacted had a hard time
understanding the task and, at times, did not manage to take on the perspective of their
students and imagine what they would produce, since for these tertiary-level subject
41/D7
specialists, the answer to this question was clear and simple: they expect students to use
“technical language from day one” and could not imagine what else needs to be said about
this. This may reflect the common observation that subject-specialists tend to reduce DL to
the level of vocabulary, technical terms and single words or short phrases (see, e.g. Smit &
Dafouz, 2012; Hüttner et al., 2013). Thus, teachers need to be made aware of all the layers
productive disciplinary literacy/ies entail.
The findings of the TASK-2 survey provide some insight into the linguistic realization of DL
skills across different subjects and grade levels. As discussed in the TASK-2 country reports,
by surveying the teachers’ texts through a CDF-focused lens, it was possible to delineate the
linguistic features needed for communicating subject-specific knowledge. The Coding &
Analysis Guide helped researchers 1) identify the cognitive functions needed and their
respective language patterns when engaging with semiotic resources and 2) illuminate which
discourse features tend to be expected for different CDF-types. For example, this
exploratory survey shows that teachers expect learners to use a high density of adjectives,
prepositions of place, passive voice and present tenses for descriptions, while students are
expected to use nominalizations, participle clauses, past tenses and phrases to mark
examples when reporting, or to use complex clauses and signal phrases for explanations.
Obviously, this is only a glimpse into the data, but it highlights that the Coding & Analysis
Guide allowed also those TASK-2 researchers who are content specialists to investigate the
linguistic demands prompted by various semiotic resources (see Section 3.4 for details).
Besides illustrating how certain CDFs are expected to be linguistically realized, this
collection of teachers’ texts also shows the range of different cognitive discourse functions
teachers expect from students, bringing us to the second implication:
Implication No 2: Teacher training aimed at sensitizing educators towards
layers of DL should consider both linguistic realizations of different academic
discourse functions and also the range of thinking skills they expect their
students to express.
Across all of the reports in Section 3.4, CDF types associated with lower-level thinking skills
dominated the corpus, such as describe, categorize, or report, i.e. operations where
knowledge is typically only reproduced and re-arranged, but usually not used for problemsolving or critical thinking. In other words, teachers tend to associate the use of semiotic
resources with eliciting declarative knowledge rather than considering these semiotic
prompts as a way to engage students in higher-order and more self-reliant cognitive
operations. Throughout the TASK-2 corpus, CDF-types like evaluate, explore, or explain are
rare, especially in History (e.g. Rieder-Marschallinger (AT) or Cungu (AL)) and Science (e.g.
Minardi (IT), Adadan (TR), Štefková (SK)). Yet, CDFs associated with higher-order thinking
processes play important roles in the discourse of most subjects (and also their curricular
documents, see Dalton-Puffer & Bauer-Marschallinger, 2019, for example). As highlighted in
the report by Silvia Rieder-Marschallinger (AT), who compared primary and secondary
teachers’ texts as well as L1 and L2 productions at the primary level, such teacher training
might also raise teachers’ awareness regarding offering a more balanced programme, i.e.
showing them ways to also tackle higher-order thinking skills, even at lower levels of
education. This might also entail focusing on CDF episode-structure and content in order to
help learners express their cognitive processes in a more convincing and clear way.
Especially young CLIL learners would benefit from such an intervention, as here teachers
42/D7
might expect young learners to do noticeably less well in the L2 than in the L1. As previous
research (e.g. Bauer-Marschallinger, 2022; Breeze & Dafouz, 2017; Lorenzo, 2017) and
some of the reports in Section 3.4 have shown, comprehensible and clearly signaled CDFepisode-structure seems key for sophisticated and convincing subject-specific discourse and
should therefore be explicitly addressed during teacher training at all levels, in all subjects.
At this point, however, it should be mentioned that the results outlined in the reports in
Section 3.4 only present the findings of a pilot study, field-testing the Teachers’ Expectation
Text Elicitation Protocol and the Cognitive Discourse Function (CDF)-Based Coding &
Analysis Guide, which links to the next implication:
Implication No. 3: While the research tools developed for TASK-2 of WG3
facilitate many interesting insights, these tools still need further refinement
before applying them on a wider scale.
As already mentioned above, some teachers misunderstood the task, which required verbal
clarifications in several contexts. Therefore, the Teachers’ Expectation Text Elicitation
Protocol needs some more specification, mostly to help teachers understand what is meant
by a semiotic resource and what type of output is expected. Moreover, the instructions would
benefit from being more concise to avoid teachers only skimming the rather extensive
instructions. On top of that, Yavuz Kurt (TR), suggests in his report that, in addition to the
current procedure, I would try alternative ways of collecting data about teacher expectations
and see how they would work. One way, for example, could be providing a sample student
response for them to analyse and correct, instead of asking teachers to imagine writing an
exam answer as if they were students. Alternatively, follow-up interviews could be beneficial
in clarifying teachers' expectations and improving the validity of the data.
Put differently, it seems that while the Teachers’ Expectation Text Elicitation Protocol allows
the collection of very insightful data, the findings would benefit from triangulation to gain a
fuller picture and to dig deeper into the teachers’ reasonings. It also needs to be kept in mind
that taking semiotic resources, which are often visuals, steer the teachers’ texts towards
descriptive language, so it is not surprising that describe is the most frequent CDF type
across the different reports:
•
•
The findings showed that the CDFs are frequently shaped with respect to the nature
of the visual element (Emine Adadan (TR)).
The first sentences with which the text begins are mainly descriptive. These
sentences are always accompanied by verbs in the present tense, which
semantically indicate state, belonging or presentation (I have, I am, shows, consists
etc.) (Jonida Cungu (AL)).
Yet, this might also be typical of classroom interaction per se (see Dalton-Puffer et al.,
2018), since any type of visual, realia or general informative input might first be described to
create a shared basis for further investigation or elaboration, i.e. a subsequent (co)construction of other CDF types.
As many of the authors of the reports pointed out, differences in distributions might also
stem from differences in subjects and age-group, referring to different levels of cognitive
maturity, but also needs and purposes of different subjects. For example, those reports
dealing with demands in EFL classes indicate that these texts seem to reflect the social
43/D7
needs of a language and expansion of vocabulary (see reports by Yavuz Kurt (TR) or Lucille
Lopriore (IT)).
Therefore, the following research-related implication needs to be considered:
Implication No 4: A more systematic analysis and comparison of cases is
needed for a fuller understanding of differences in target groups and subject
disciplines.
These reports each provide interesting initial insights, but represent individual case studies
resting on convenience samples, without pronounced comparative elements. Rudimentary
comparisons between different contexts or languages have shown some informative trends
(see report by Rieder-Marschallinger (AT) for a comparison between primary-level General
Studies and secondary-level History texts, as well as a comparison of texts written in the L1
and L2 at primary level). However, these comparisons are still rather limited, and therefore,
more sophisticated and systematic meta-analyses across different datasets are advised. In
fact, some endeavours of different COST researchers, including from ICT countries, are
currently being planned. This might also entail an investigation of whether the type of
semiotic resource plays a role (see. e.g. report by Jaroslava Štefková (SK)).
Since we could not directly ask teachers, one aspect of these reports that could only be
speculated on is how realistic the teachers’ written expectations are compared to what “real”
students would produce. Only in the case of one teacher in the report by Lucilla Lopriore (IT)
do we find information on the teacher having actually used the semiotic resource for
assessment purposes. Comparing the teacher’s anticipated results and the learners’ actual
performance, two of her learners’ outcomes de facto matched her previously expected text.
In many cases, however, the expectations, especially the linguistic ones, seem rather high.
This brings us closer to one of the next phases of the COST Action: Developing teacher
training programmes and sample instructional materials which would help teachers create
their own instructional tasks and progressions to help learners attain desired content and
discourse learning objectives. In terms of research, the work related to TASK-2 has provided
a sound basis to advance our understanding of what is needed for such pedagogical
interventions, pointing the way to future scientific explorations and providing further footing
for these pedagogical measures.
References Section 3.4
Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2022). CLIL with a capital I – Using cognitive discourse functions
to integrate language and content acquisition in the CLIL history classroom [PhD].
University of Vienna, Vienna.
Breeze, R., & Dafouz, E. (2017). Constructing complex cognitive discourse functions in
higher education: An exploratory study of exam answers in Spanish- and Englishmedium instruction settings. System, 70, 81–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.024
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2019). Cognitive discourse functions meet
historical competences: Towards an integrated pedagogy in CLIL history education.
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7(1), 30–60.
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17017.dal
44/D7
Dalton-Puffer, C., Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Brückl-Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J.,
Kröss, L., & Lechner, L. (2018). Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL
lessons: towards an empirical validation of the CDF Construct. European Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0028
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-ana lyses related to
achievement. London: Routledge.
Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their
influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267–284.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777385
Lorenzo, F. (2017). Historical literacy in bilingual settings: Cognitive academic language in
CLIL history narratives. Linguistics and Education, 37, 32–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.11.002
Smit, U. & Dafouz, E. (2012). Integrating content and language in higher education: An
introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research practices
across Europe. AILA Review 25, 1-12.
45/D7
4. APPENDIX: SURVEY TOOLS DEVELOPED
NOTE: As with the chapters in Section 2.4 and 3.4, the three Survey Tools are inserted
within the body of Deliverable-7 proper. As such, the page-numbering of the document
pertaining to the Deliverable proper continue with “page/D7” while those of the Survey Tools
are coded accordingly, e.g. page 2 of Survey-Tool-1 is numbered “2/TOOL-1”. This
organisation will allow tool-developers to receive feedback from researchers who use these
to conduct similar surveys and use such feedback to refine the tools and subsequently share
improved versions of these tools. To access each tool, click on the range of pages indicated.
Chapter 4.1. TOOL-1: Surveying Curricular Demands (Codebook & Survey
Template)
(4 pages)
Chapter 4.2. TOOL-2: Elicitation of Teachers’ Expectations (Guideline)
(7 pages)
Chapter 4.3. TOOL-3: A CDF-Based Coding & Analysis Guide (Reflection on
Teachers’ Expectations)
(5 pages)
46/D7
SURVEYING CURRICULAR DEMANDS • Codebook & Survey Log
Survey Tool Developed by
Christiane Dalton-Puffer, University Wien & Y.L. Teresa Ting, University of Calabria
Part A. TASK-1 CODING KEY
How to colour-code and tag mentions of various types of disciplinary literacy/ies*.
●
Note that the TAGGING, i.e., inserting the code (between brackets) is the most important step since
we will use this coding to analyze the data.
●
The colouring is just for us to have a visual appreciation of how many (or few) mentions of DL there are.
Here is a video explaining how to set up keyboard shortcuts for colour-coding text.
●
We consider both spoken and written language.
●
There are seven categories, A to G:
A. Mention of students’ ability to perform verbal
actions based on thinking skills, using COMMAND
VERBS denoting language actions. (There are also
other command verbs such as create, design etc. that
don’t involve language, which we are not analyzing
here.)
explain cause and effect
report/narrate
categorize
define
describe
evaluate
explore
“Students compare (CV) and evaluate (CV) the
appropriacy of ecosystems for touristic development”
(NOTE that here, we have an example where there
are two instances of “CV”)
For more information and examples, please see Table
1 below.
B. Mention of students’ awareness of genre or texttypes.
Code in electric blue and tag with (GG) for each type
of genre mentioned.
C. Other mentions of students’ productive use of
language (PL) for showing learning that are not
covered by A. or B.
Code in green and tag with (PL).
“Students can describe the change of position of
objects (CV) in terms of distance and displacement..”
“Students will explain the cause-and-effect
relationship (CV) between the two world wars”
Code in fuchsia and tag with (CV)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
e.g. “comparing domestic and wild animals (CV) for
the connection between their body structure and their
movements…”
“...assessing the significance (CV) of X and justifying
decisions (CV)
e.g., “students should discern between newspaper
articles (GG), research papers (GG), advertisements
(GG), personal letters (GG), formal letters (GG),
informal emails (GG), formal emails (GG), etc.”
and write a newspaper article (GG) to convince (PL)
others to…
searching, processing and presenting information
(PL)
1/TOOL-1
D. Mention of students’ ability to navigate, use and
also show learning through digital literacy elements.
Code in purple and tag with (DD).
E. Mention of students’ ability to extract information
from visual elements for learning and also use visual
elements to show their knowledge.
Code this in orange and tag with (VV) for each visual
element mentioned.
F. Mention students’ ability to work with subject
specific realia required for undertaking subjectspecific hands-on actions.
Code this in light blue and tag with (TT) for each tool
mentioned.
e.g. “organize a slide presentation (DD) on the topic…
and write a newspaper article (GG) to convince (PL)
others to…
e.g. “Students should be able to interpret information
contained in line graphs (VV), bar charts (VV), piegraphs (VV), tables (VV), etc. and be able to represent
information contained in tables into appropriate
graphs (VV) (i.e. understand when it is appropriate to
use line graphs, bar charts and/or pie charts)
e.g., “Working with suitable aids (e.g. magnifying
glass (TT), microscope (TT), computer (DD), specialist
literature,; searching, processing and presenting
information (PL); identifying and solving problems;
Carrying out simple experiments and measuring
procedures (TT).”
G. ALL ELSE that you feel is relevant but does not fall “For every task that he does not understand, he asks
into the categories above. For example:
for an explanation (OTH), at home or at school
•
•
Mentions of bi/multi/translingual practices;
other mentions which explicitly state or may
imply an “awareness of DL”
Code these in red and tagged as (OTH) for “other”.
TABLE 1. Expanded examples of CDFs (adapted from Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of
cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and
multilingual education. EuJAL, 1(2), 216–253.
2/TOOL-1
Part B. TASK-1 ANALYSIS TEMPLATE
Subject Country educational level (age)
(eg.) Biology Austria-lower secondary (age 10-14)
COUNTRY CODE_SUBJECT CODE_educ level
(e.g. AT_BIO_lowersec)
Page number where original text in national language starts in the official document.
SECTION OF CURRICULUM TEXT + page number of original text
REFLECTION
- word count of text:
●
SECTION OF CURRICULUM TEXT + page number of original text
REFLECTION
- word count of text:
●
SECTION OF CURRICULUM TEXT + page number of original text
REFLECTION
- word count of text:
●
SECTION OF CURRICULUM TEXT + page number of original text
REFLECTION
- word count of text:
●
SECTION OF CURRICULUM TEXT + page number of original text
REFLECTION
- word count of text:
●
END OF CURRICULUM TEXT
3/TOOL-1
Specific COMMENTARY on this part of the curriculum
- make mention of total approximate word count of text on which you are commenting
You may for example comment on the missed opportunities that you discern in this curriculum: e.g. where
you would insert explicit mention of language resources for working towards subject learning goals.
Some general commentary/ies which might be used in the “general discussion” part of a final Report:
The question we are asking is: “Does the COUNTRY's National Curriculum draw COUNTRY's teachers' attention
to the need to build their students' academic language / disciplinary literacies as an essential parallel process
accompanying content-learning?"
● ……
● …..
● …..
4/TOOL-1
A TEACHERS’ EXPECTATIONS ELICITATION PROTOCOL • Gaining
Insight into Language and Discourse Which Teachers Expect from
Their Learners
Protocol Developed by
Y.L. Teresa Ting, University of Calabria & Silvia Rieder-Marschallinger, KPH Wien Krems
1. Introduction
As explained in previous Sections of this Deliverable, while all subject-teachers can easily identify the
discipline-specific concepts they want their students to understand, many fail to appreciate that the
discipline-specific language within which those concepts are embedded often sounds like a foreign
language for those who are external to the particular disciplinary community of practice, i.e. learners.
As such, like the learning of a foreign language, we must teach students disciplinary discourse,
explicitly. And who is best positioned to teach students how to write and speak in ways which are
acceptable to the chemistry community if not the chemistry teacher? That said, “a chemistry teacher
is as interested in teaching word transformations as an English Foreign Language teacher is in
teaching chemical transformations” (Ting, forthcoming). Thus “The Language Dilemma of Content
Education” (Figure 1A): subject teachers simplify complex disciplinary discourse to help students
understand complex discipline-specific concepts; i.e. subject-teachers ride down the semantic wave
while explaining content (Figure 1B), but often forget to help their students ride back up the
semantic wave, yet expect their students to then communicate disciplinary notions using disciplineappropriate discourse, which, even in L1, is like a foreign language to learners.
A
1/TOOL-2
B
Figure 1. A: “The Language Dilemma of Content-Instruction” poses a potentially vicious cycle whereby
content-teachers, during instruction, simplify complex and foreign-sounding disciplinary discourse so
to facilitate content learning (rightly so), yet expect their students to then utilize complex disciplinarydiscourse to communicate knowledge. B: Maton’s semantic wave (2013) illustrates how, complex
concepts (1) are unpacked by contentious teachers (2) into more comprehensible units of
information. However, it is then necessary to re-pack the information (4) which helps students
organize information into precise and correct understandings (5). If we do not help students “ride up
the semantic wave”, they are left with disorganized notions (6) (from Ting, 2024).
Thus the need to first sensitize subject-teachers to the fact that they themselves, at the end of the
day, expect their students to “language about” discipline-specific notions in discipline-appropriate
ways. Once subject-specialists realize that they are best positioned to delineate the type of
disciplinary discourse their students need to learn, then it becomes possible to help these teachers
develop instructional tasks for building their students’ disciplinary discourse proficiency. By first
delineating the discourse that teachers themselves expect, it is more likely that they will embrace
tasks which help students acquire that language.
Note that this same argument extends to bot L1-language and foreign language education. After
many years of compulsory schooling and sometimes equally many years of FL-learning, schoolleavers must be equipped with academic/professional language skills in both L1 and in the FL. Thus
the importance of also delineating the type of language which language-experts expect from their
learners.
2. Protocol for eliciting teachers’ expectations
Below, protocol instructions are in this font while instructions for teacher-contributors are in this
font.
Step 1. Contact potential teacher-contributors and inform them of the survey and what it would
entail (see Box 1). For those who express interest in taking part in the survey, follow up with the
three-step process.
2/TOOL-2
BOX 1.
We are conducting a pilot study on the kind of language that we would expect ours students to
write when they have learnt something complex, like what you teach. We are particularly
interested in how students communicate information contained in what we call “semioticelements”; anything that is not the text of a textbook. For example, visuals, figures, flow-charts,
images, or also (textual) sources like diary excerpts, newspaper excerpts etc. We hope that, in
exchange for your time, we will be able to come back to you in a year or so with some tasks that
you can use for your teaching.
We need you to identify 3-5 “semiotic-elements”, such as images, timelines, (info-)graphics,
diagrams etc, that you often use to help your students understand a given topic-X associated with
that semiotic element.
For each semiotic element, we need you to imagine if you were to present it to your students at an
exam: what textual output would you like to see a good model student write/say* about each
item so that you would gladly give that student a 10/10 on their understanding of that topic.
*What teachers expect their students to write is preferred. However, for teacher-contributors who
teach primary-level learners, it is acceptable if they would prefer to write what they expect their
young students to say.
Step 2. Send interested teacher-contributors information illustrated in BOX 2-5, depending on the
subjects they teach and which age-group learners they teach. Each BOX provides an illustration of
the type of text we would like them to produce in reference to each of the semiotic elements that
they themselves have chosen.
BOX 2. For upper-secondary or first year tertiary teachers who teach science, maths or other
STEM-subjects
Below is an example of two images taken from a chapter addressing the topic of “mimicry and
natural selection”, in a textbook for 15-year-old students. Under the images is a text (100-150
words) which a science teacher has written to show what she would expect a good student, who is
familiar with the images (i.e. via in lessons and/or in the textbook) would write about on the topic
if the student were to be presented with the images at an exam.
3/TOOL-2
•
Image source: Cambridge IGCSE Biology (3rd Edition; p. 247). Mary Jones & Geoff Jones. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN: 9780521147798
•
Image source: Teoremi funzioni derivabili. Volume 5 Pag 1720 n 185
Note that teacher-contributors teaching first-year tertiary level students were given the same
examples above, but asked to produce a text of 150-250 words
4/TOOL-2
BOX 3. For upper-secondary or first year tertiary teachers who teach History and other non-STEMsubjects.
Below is an example of a flow-chart addressing the topic of “Mercantilism”. Under the images is a
text (100-150 words) which a history teacher has written to show what she would expect a good
student, who is familiar with the images (i.e. via in lessons and/or in the textbook) would write
about on the topic if the student were to be presented with the images at an exam.
•
Image source: Bauer-Marschallinger (2022)
5/TOOL-2
BOX 4. For primary-level science or history teachers.
Below are two examples showing images related to science (top) or history which a teacher has
used in her lessons. Under each image, the teacher has written a text (30-80 words) which shows
what she would expect a good primary-level student, who is familiar with the images, might write
or say when shown the images.
•
Image source: Sonnenklar 3-4 (1st Edition; p. 22). Christian Bertsch, Susanne Eichhorn,
Kornelia Lehner-Simonis, Sabine Ludwig-Szendi.ÖBV. ISBN: 978-3-209-11373-3
•
Image source: Sonnenklar 3-4 (1st Edition; p. 32). Christian Bertsch, Susanne Eichhorn,
Kornelia Lehner-Simonis, Sabine Ludwig-Szendi.ÖBV. ISBN: 978-3-209-11373-3
6/TOOL-2
BOX 5. For upper middle school First Foreign Language (English) teachers.
Below is an example of an image taken from an English foreign language textbook that a teacher
has used in her lessons. Under the image, the teacher has written a text (100-200 words) which
shows what she would expect a good 14-year-old student, who is familiar with the image, to write
about the image if it were presented at an exam.
•
Image source: Access 4, B1+ (2009; p. 82). Virginia Evans & Jenny Dooley. Express
Publishing. ISBN: 9781848620315
Step-3. Collect each teacher’s contribution and submit it to the Teachers’ Expectations database.
References
Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2022). CLIL with a capital I – Using cognitive discourse functions to
integrate language and content acquisition in the CLIL history classroom [PhD]. University of
Vienna, Vienna.
Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and
Education, 24: 8-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005
Ting, Y.L.T. (2024). Designing materials for building subject-specific literacies: Secondary-level
chemistry, in Julia Huttner and Christiane Dalton-Puffer (Eds), Building Disciplinary Literacies in
Content and Language Integrated Learning, (pp. 164-215). Routledge.
7/TOOL-2
A CDF-BASED CODING & ANALYSIS GUIDE • Analyzing Teachers’
ExpectaDons
Coding & Analysis Guide Developed by
Silvia Rieder-Marschallinger, KPH Wien Krems & Silvia Minardi, Liceo Quasimodo Magenta (Milan)
1. Introduction
TASK-2 of WG3 intended to collect concrete examples of teachers’ expecta@ons of students’ disciplinary
literacies in order to beDer understand the demands in different subjects and at various school levels. To
facilitate this process and to have a common way of approaching the texts produced by the teachers, and
thus to be able to compare them, we developed a coding and analysis manual. Previous research has
shown that Dalton-Puffer’s (2013) construct of cogni@ve discourse func@ons (CDFs) is a helpful tool to
bring to light and discuss the features of disciplinary literacies in a systema@c yet flexible way that also
allows insights into the ‘construc@on of content’ (see, e.g., Dalton-Puffer & Bauer-Marschallinger, 2019;
Bauer-Marschallinger, 2022; Breeze & Dafouz, 2017; Hofman Hopf, 2015; Kröss, 2014; Lorenzo, 2017).
Consequently, CDFs were chosen as underlying construct for this coding and analysis manual. This tool was
draaed in connec@on to the mee@ng of Working Group 2 and 3 in Elbasan (Albania) in March 2024, where
it was shared and discussed with members interested in the analyses of the Task-2 texts. Seven members
then agreed to pilot this coding manual, each applying it to 5-10 texts of the task-2 corpus. The next
sec@on describes this analysis tool and presents the core elements, which are specifica@ons of the CDF
construct for the subject history as well as for science.
2. The coding and analysis manual
The coding manual contains five sec@ons: (1) an introduc@on to the CDF construct, (2) specifica@ons for
the CDF construct for the subject of history and science, (3) step-by-step instruc@ons to analyse teachers’
expecta@ons, (4) sample analyses, and (5) references and further reading.
The introduc@on to the CDF construct in sec$on 1 was included to help coders orientate and to be
reminded of what the concept of cogni@ve discourse func@ons and its taxonomy entail. As such, this part
briefly describes the theore@cal foo@ng of the construct and then presents the original construct:
Table 1 Dalton-Puffer’s (2013, 2016) CDF construct; fourth column added by the authors of the manual
CDF
examples of CDF Verbs
general communicative intention
abbreviation
I tell you how we can cut up the
world according to certain ideas
classify, compare, contrast, match,
structure, categorise, subsume
CA
I tell you about the extension of this
object of specialist knowledge
define, identify, characterise
DF
Describe
I tell you details of what I can see
(also metaphorically)
describe, label, name, specify
DS
Evaluate
I tell you what my position is vis a vis
X
evaluate, judge, argue, justify, take a
stance, critique, comment, reflect
EV
Explain
I give you reasons for and tell you
cause/s of X
explain, reason, express cause/effect,
deduce, draw conclusions
EA
Explore
I tell you something that is potential
(i.e., non-factual)
explore, hypothesise, predict,
speculate, guess, estimate, simulate
EO
Report
I tell you sth. external to our
immediate context on which I have a
legitimate knowledge claim
report, inform, recount, narrate,
present, summarise, relate
RE
Categorize
Define
1/TOOL-3
This table includes each core type (first column), the general communica@ve inten@on it expresses (second
column), and command verbs oaen used to prompt these func@ons. In the fourth column, we added
abbrevia@ons commonly used for these CDF-types. In this introduc@on, it is also men@oned that CDFs can
run on different levels, i.e., the basic- and episode-levels (Dalton-Puffer et al., 2018). In essence, CDFepisodes are more extensive stretches of speech that serve one overarching communica@ve inten@on,
which can then be built up of smaller CDF cons@tuents, termed the basic level.
Then, in sec$on 2, the readers are presented with two sugges@ons to specify Dalton-Puffer’s (2013, 2016)
construct for two focus disciplines of this COST ac@on, namely history and science. As men@oned above,
previous research has demonstrated that the original, general construct is useful in that it enables a CDFbased discussion in different disciplines. However, subject-specific analyses have indicated that it requires
more detailed specifica@ons and clearer boundaries between the CDF types to use it as a reliable analysis
tool (see Bauer-Marschallinger, 2022). Therefore, based on the general taxonomy, specifica@ons for
different subjects have been suggested to increase the reliability of the CDF construct as a researchanaly@cal tool. These specifica@ons are presented in Table 2 and 3 below.
Table 2. SpecificaIon of Dalton-Puffer’s CDF construct for the subject history by Bauer-Marschallinger
(2022, p. 298)
CDF
Categorize
(CA)
Additions/ specifications for the subject HISTORY (changes marked in bold)
I tell you about similarities and differences (compare) and how we can cut up the world
according to certain ideas (classify).
(DF)
I tell you about the extension of this object of specialist knowledge in the context of its
time.
Describe (DS)
I tell you details of what I can perceive on the basis of historical sources and materials.
Evaluate
I tell you what my position is vis a vis X (e.g., the validity or historical significance of a
source, an argument, an opinion, etc.) and I provide you with historically valid
justifications for this view.
Define
(EV)
Explain (EA)
Explore
(EO)
Report
(RE)
I give you reasons for and tell you about the causes or motives of X.
I tell you something that is counter-factual (= sth. that could have been) or speculative
(= sth. that might have been).
I tell you sth. external to our immediate context, i.e., not observable in the sources/
materials at hand, on which I have a legitimate knowledge claim.
I give you a condensed version (= key points) of what I have been working on recently.
Table 3. SpecificaIon of Dalton-Puffer’s CDF construct for science by Minardi
CDF
Additions/ specifications for SCIENCE
I tell you how to
•
allocate an object or term to a class of objects or terms which has already been
established. The items to be classified are first considered with respect to an
essential feature, then compared, and finally grouped in a class according to their
respective similarities and differences (classify).
•
put two or more objects, facts or ideas together and stating in what ways they are
similar or dissimilar. The two phenomena must be comparable, that is, they must
have some characteristics in common (compare and contrast).
Categorize
(CA)
2/TOOL-3
Define
(DF)
Describe
I tell you how to determine the meaning of a term, such as a word, sentence or symbol,
e.g. in a mathematical language.
I tell you how to visualise the nature of something by telling its main characteristics or
essential features (how it looks, sounds, tastes, smells, works, is produced).
(DS)
Note: In science you can describe conditions, the results of an experiment, chemical
changes, physical movements, what is seen through a microscope…
Evaluate
(EV)
I express my opinions or show my own perspectives on something we, as scientists, are
investigating.
Explain
I tell you about the process of seeking relationships among scientific facts, for example
by looking for causes and effect.
(EA)
Explore
(EO)
Note: Providing evidence is an essential part of an explanation.
I try to give a temporary or tentative solution to a scientific problem or an explanation
for why something happens.
I tell you the essential facts or elements of an occurrence.
Report
I tell you what others claim.
(RE)
I refer to a formula to tell you about a specific aspect of a scientific notion or concept.
In sec$on 3, readers are provided with a step-by-step guide on how to work through the samples, star@ng
with reading the whole text, then highligh@ng language features that help them iden@fy the underlying
communica@ve inten@on, before indica@ng the best finng CDF type. Here, the readers are also provided
with a box containing prac@cal informa@on on how to conduct this analysis. For example, readers are
reminded that individual CDFs can run over several sentences or that one sentence might contain two
CDFs in sequence, and that these could also overlap. These reminders also include instruc@ons on how to
mark these occurrences in text-processing soaware, such as Microsoa Word. Moreover, this sec@on offers
@ps on how to assign CDF types more reliably, e.g., by adding a reminder not to get hung up on so-called
‘signal phrases’, as some@mes form and func@on might not match, and thus one always needs to keep the
context in mind. This part also includes hints on how to differen@ate between specific CDF types in history
and science, e.g., the difference of report and describe (in history) or the difference between explain and
evaluate (in science). These @ps are based on our own experiences working with CDFs and discussions
with and open ques@ons by other (COST) researchers.
Aaerwards, coders are invited to read through the sample again and mark and comment on any linguis@c
features that strike them as typical for their discipline. This step was marked as op@onal.
Then, researchers using the manual should decide and indicate whether the whole sample appears to
express an overall communica@ve inten@on (= CDF episode), unifying the text. Again, further explana@on
and an example are provided to clarify this step.
We also asked them to cross-check their analysis, meaning that they should review each other’s codings
and discuss any poten@al disagreements and decide as a team which code would be the best choice.
Finally, we asked researchers to add a summarizing, reflec@ve comment below the coded sample. Basically,
we wanted them to explicate whether or not an episode could be iden@fied, thereby poten@ally classifying
the type of wriDen text. Moreover, we asked them to describe which CDF types were generally used, how
they were realized linguis@cally, and what these insights might tell us about the teachers’ expecta@ons in
terms of disciplinary literacies. We also asked them to evaluate how realis@c they believe these teachers’
expecta@ons to be, keeping the target- and age-group in mind.
Then, sec$on 4 provides sample analyses to illustrate what such an analysis might look like in Microsoa
Word. One such sample is provided below (Figure 1). Please note that this is a screenshot so that
comments can be seen as well.
3/TOOL-3
Kommentiert [SRM1]: Classifying phrase
[DS: (CA: This is a picture from the stone age.) (DS: There are many people in the picture. There are
women, men and children. In the background they are building a tent. A woman is cooking in front
of a tent. Another woman has got wood in her hands. She is collecting wood. On the left side you can
see an old man. He tells the kids some stories.) (RE/EA: They had no books,) so they only knew things
from telling.)(DS: Two women are making clothes. Two men are coming home from hunting with a
deer.)]
Kommentiert [SRM2]: Men0oning of era
Kommentiert [SRM3]: Descrip0ve language
Kommentiert [SRM4]: Direct reference to the historical
source
Kommentiert [SRM5]: Phrases for descrip0on
(preposi0ons)
Word count: 93 words
Age of good student (and CEFR level if applicable): age of 12, CEFR A1
Source:
Textbook: Unsere Vergangenheit 2
Authors: Benedikt Maukner
Publisher: Hölzel Verlag
page number: p. 29
Kommentiert [SRM6]: Present progressive is used to
describe what‘s happening in the picture
Kommentiert [SRM7]: Preposi0ons for descrip0on
Kommentiert [SRM8]: Use of personal pronoun
Any other comments: It`s eminent that the students work on the vocabulary they need for describing
the scen ery in th e b eginn in g e.g.: build up a tent, gather wood, etc. ATerwards the students are able to
describ e the scen ery by using p resen t tense conUnuou s.
Analytical comment: This text can be classified as a historical source description (illustration of life in the
stone age). This overall communicative intention (=episode) seems rather obvious due to the heavy use
of descriptive language and the CDF-basic type DESCRIBE. Features of descriptive language include direct
reference to the picture and its content, realized through phrases like “in the picture”, “there are” as well
as prepositions like “in front of”, “in the background” or “on the left”. Moreover, whenever this
imaginative student is describing, they use present progressive. This descriptive paragraph, however, is
introduced with a classification of the source, which seems very typical in historical discourse. In between
the descriptions, the text also contains information that is not directly presented in the text, for which
past simple is used; therefore, it is reported information. In this particular case, it is a reported causeeffect relation (EXPLAIN).
Overall, this text seems very typical of this type of historical writing, making use of appropriate tenses
and descriptive language. Given that the teacher submitted this as a lower secondary text of an imaginary
12-year-old student, this seems to be a somewhat ambitious expectation. However, especially if the
teacher practiced historical source description beforehand, as indicated in the comment above, then this
outcome can be realistic.
Kommentiert [SRM9]: The use of past tense makes this
difficult to code. We can the „see“ the absence in the
picture, but it also refers to a general historical fact (RE). Due
to the use of past tense and the fact that we can‘t see it
clearly in the picture, I opted for REPORT (=something
external to the source at hand)
Kommentiert [SRM10]: Linking to show cause and effect
Figure 1. Sample analysis: Living during the stone age.
Finally, sec$on 5 lists literature used for the coding and analysis manual.
3. The analysis process and outlook
As men@oned in the introduc@on, this manual was created prior to and further developed at the mee@ng
of Working Group 2 and 3 in Elbasan, Albania, in March 2024. The authors of the coding manual, Silvia
Rieder-Marschallinger and Silvia Minardi, presented it to COST members interested in the analyses of the
Task-2 corpus, followed by a discussion that allowed us to improve the manual. We tried to clarify open
ques@ons regarding the procedure in the manual, and we also directly incorporated their first round of
feedback, e.g., what to include as prac@cal informa@on or general @ps. Then, we asked them to try out the
manual with one teacher sample directly in Elbasan, providing us with further insights to adjust this
analysis tool. For example, we realized that deciding if there is a unifying CDF-episode should happen later
in the analysis process than we ini@ally suggested, i.e., moving it from step 2 to step 4, as this allowed a
more deliberate and appropriate coding.
4/TOOL-3
At this mee@ng, we also agreed that each member of this analysis team would select at least 5 texts that
they elicited for the Task-2 corpus and analyse these texts according to this manual. We then met
periodically via Zoom to discuss the process, clarifying open ques@ons and finding coding partners for the
cross-checking analysis, and to organize the wri@ng of chapters for the current report. The authors of the
coding manual were also available for further ques@ons via e-mail and cross-checked some of the analyses
when asked by the members of the analysis team. The results of the first pilo@ng of this tool can be found
in sec@on 3.3 of this report, also providing more informa@on on the selected texts, their teacher
par@cipants, and their specific research process. Generally, this pilot study has helped us trial a CDF-based
coding manual, which will be fine-tuned in the following months and published with other research tools
developed by Working Group 3.
References
Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2022). CLIL with a capital I – Using cogniIve discourse funcIons to integrate
language and content acquisiIon in the CLIL history classroom [PhD]. University of Vienna, Vienna.
Breeze, R., & Dafouz, E. (2017). Construc@ng complex cogni@ve discourse func@ons in higher educa@on: An
exploratory study of exam answers in Spanish- and English-medium instruc@on senngs. System,
70, 81–91. hDps://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.024
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cogni@ve discourse func@ons for conceptualising content-language
integra@on in CLIL and mul@lingual educa@on. EuJAL, 1(2), 216–253.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Cogni@ve discourse func@ons: specifying and integra@ve interdisciplinary
construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Bilingual educaIon and bilingualism.
Conceptualising integraIon in CLIL and mulIlingual educaIon (pp. 29–54). Bristol, Buffalo:
Mul@lingual MaDers.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2019). Cogni@ve Discourse Func@ons meet Historical
Competences: Towards an integrated pedagogy in CLIL history educa@on. Journal of Immersion
and Content-Based Language EducaIon, 7(1), 30-60.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Brückl-Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L., & Lechner, L.
(2018). Cogni@ve discourse func@ons in Austrian CLIL lessons: towards an empirical valida@on of
the CDF Construct. European Journal of Applied LinguisIcs, 6(1), 5–29.
hDps://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0028
Hofmann, V.. Hopf J. (2015). An analysis of cogniIve discourse funcIons in Austrian CLIL biology lessons.
Vienna: University of Vienna MA Thesis. hDp://othes.univie.ac.at/3765/
Kröss, L.M., (2014) CogniIve discourse funcIons in upper secondary CLIL Physics lessons. Vienna:
University of Vienna MA Thesis. hDp://othes.univie.ac.at/33460/
Lorenzo, F. (2017). Historical literacy in bilingual senngs: Cogni@ve academic language in CLIL history
narra@ves. LinguisIcs and EducaIon, 37, 32–41. hDps://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.11.002
5/TOOL-3