International E-Journal of Advances in Education

Öz

More and more Flemish pupils are taking history courses in a foreign language. In that school subject, pupils develop historical insight and learn to report on historical events, their possible interpretations and the importance of those events for the further course of history in the CLIL-language. This study examined the extent to which CLIL and non-CLIL pupils from the second grade of secondary education (15-year-olds) can express this historical view ("the voice of the historian") in a French-medium written text in the context of history lessons. Two Flemish CLIL classes and one non-CLIL class were given an essay question containing three types of questions that historians usually ask themselves: ‘what are the objective facts?’, ‘How can I interpret those facts?’, ‘How do I estimate the importance of the events?’. These questions were answered with respect to contents relating to the Great Voyages of Discovery and Reformation and Counter Reformation.
A qualitative interpretative linguistic-semiotic discourse analytic approach, inspired by Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistic Framework (Halliday & Mathiessen, 2014) and Martin & White’s (2005) ‘evaluative language’ framework, was used to analyze the data. Thus, our analysis involved checking whether the learners were able to realize the textual, interpersonal and ideational functions of written discourse in the CLIL-language (French) using a neutral, non-graduating register.
The results based on an analysis of 36 essays show that students of that age can produce a coherent text in answer to the set essay questions and demonstrate the ability to use the voice of the historian within an educational context. Thus, they are able to address the three elements of the voice of the historian (facts, interpretations, importance) in their texts, at least at a level that can be expected of 15-year-olds. CLIL learners appear to be able to do this slightly better than non-CLIL learners. On the other hand, non-CLIL learners are able to realize the textual dimension, as defined within the SFL framework, somewhat better than CLIL learners, noting especially that CLIL learners use a somewhat more subjective, more graduating style, than non-CLIL learners. Overall, however, CLIL learners' texts score 5% higher than those of non-CLIL learners.
This small-scale qualitative study on students’ ability to write as historians in a foreign language within the context of CLIL-education demonstrates that the knowledge, skills and ways of reasoning to be acquired within history education can be acquired equally well, if not better, in CLIL-classes as in non-CLIL-classes. Awareness and understanding of the linguistic demands involved in the acquisition of the ability to realize the textual, ideational and interpersonal functions of historical reports in a foreign language may constitute an important step in further professionalizing CLIL-teachers. We hope our research may inform policy makers and teacher educators about the need to educate CLIL-teachers in this respect, ultimately to improve the quality of all CLIL education.