Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 13:2 (2025) ► pp.248–270

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The effects of instruction on students’ argumentative scientific writing in a Basque medium of instruction setting

ORCiD logo with link | Mondragon Unibertsitatea
ORCiD logo with link | Mondragon Unibertsitatea | Universidad Antonio de Nebrija
ORCiD logo with link | Mondragon Unibertsitatea
ORCiD logo with link | Mondragon Unibertsitatea
Published online: 3 September 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.23014.gar
Abstract
The present quasi-experimental study explores the effects of instruction on secondary students’ scientific argumentative writing in a Basque medium of instruction program. Secondary students (N = 105) completed written tasks before and after a unit on energy in their science class as part of this investigation. The experimental group (n = 61) additionally took part in three, one-hour sessions focused on scientific argumentation via instruction in cognitive discourse functions ( (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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), while the control group (n = 44) completed the unit on energy without the additional instruction on argumentation. The final corpus of 210 texts was analysed using Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern (Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). ANOVAs showed that the experimental group’s use of argumentation strategies increased significantly, while the control group’s use of such strategies did not increase. Thus, the results show that instruction on argumentation helps students to write better argumentative compositions. These findings suggest that instruction in the use of Cognitive Discourse Functions allows for academic language learning in bilingual education contexts. The pedagogical implications and future research directions of this study’s findings are discussed.
Laburpena
Euskara bidezko irakaskuntza-programa batean bigarren hezkuntzako ikasleen idazkera zientifiko-argumentatiboan irakaskuntzak dituen ondorioak aztertzen ditu ikerketa sasi-esperimental honek. Bigarren Hezkuntzako ikasleek (N = 105) ikerketa lan honetako eginkizun gisa idatzizko atazak egin zituzten zientzia ikasgaiain energiari buruzko unitate bat landu aurretik eta ondoren. Talde esperimentalak (n = 61), unitateko lanketaz gainera, ordubeteko hiru saiotan Funtzio Kognitibo Diskurtsiboen ( (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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) ikuspegitik argumentazio zientifikoa landu zuen, kontrol-taldeak (n = 44) energiari buruzko unitatea osatu zuen argumentazioari buruzko argibide gehigarririk gabe. 210 testuz osaturiko azken corpusa Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern (Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) erabilita aztertu zen.
ANOVAk frogatu zuen talde esperimentalak hobekuntza esanguratsua izan zuela argumentazio-estrategien kopuruari dagokionez, eta kontrol-taldeak ez zuela estrategia horien erabilera handitu. Hortaz, emaitzek erakusten dute argumentazioa berariaz lantzea ikasleentzat lagungarri dela argudiozko testu hobeak idazteko. Ondorio horiek iradokitzen dute Funtzio Diskurtsibo Kognitiboen lanketak aukera ematen duela hezkuntza testuinguru elebidunetan hizkuntza akademikoa ikasteko. Ikerketa honen ondorio pedagogikoak eta etorkizuneko ikerketa ildoak ere eztabaidatzen dira.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
    • Cognitive discourse functions: The case of argue
    • Argumentative writing in science
  • Research question
  • Methods
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedure
    • The instruction
    • Data analysis
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusions, future research, limitations and implications
  • References
References (76)
References
Aldekoa, A., Manterola, I. & Idiazabal, I. (2020). A trilingual teaching sequence for oral presentation skills in Basque, Spanish and English. The Language Learning Journal, 48(3), 259–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arias-Hermoso, R., Imaz Agirre, A., & Garro Larrañaga, E. (2024). A comparison between input modalities and languages in source-based multilingual argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 601, 100813. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asterhan, C., & Schwarz, B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bailey, A. L., & Butler, F. (2003). An evidentiary framework for operationalizing academic language for broad application to K–12 education: A design document (CSE Report 611). Education, 1522(310), 1–44. [URL]
Banegas, D. L. (2012). CLIL teacher development: Challenges and experiences. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 5(1), 46–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Banegas, D. L., & Mearns, T. (2023). The language quadriptych in content and language integrated learning: Findings from a collaborative action research study. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beacco, J. C., Fleming, M., Goullier, F., Thurmann, E., & Vollmer, H. (2016). A handbook for curriculum development and teacher training: the language dimension in all Subjects. Council of Europe. [URL]
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breeze, R., & Gerns Jiménez-Villarejo, P. (2019). Building literacies in secondary school history: The specific contribution of academic writing support. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 6(1), 21–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). Plurilingual education in the Basque Autonomous Community. In J. M. Cots (Ed.), Profiling plurilingual education: A pilot study of four Spanish autonomous communities (pp. 33–53). Edicions de la Universitat de Lleida.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colmenero, K., & Lasagabaster, D. (2023). Native and non-native teachers in a minority language: An analysis of stakeholders’ opinions. International Journal of Bilingualism, 28(2), 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2017). December 2017 Council Conclusions. Retrieved: [URL]
Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crammond, J. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15(2), 230–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Tian, Y., & Wan, Q. (2022). Argumentation features and essay quality: Exploring relationships and incidence counts. Journal of Writing Research, 14(1), 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 29–54). Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Bruin, A., Carreiras, M., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2017). The BEST dataset of language proficiency. Frontiers in Psychology, 81, 1–7. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 47–69). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(3), 915–933. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
EUSTAT (2023). Students enrolled in Obligatory Secondary Education (ESO) by language model in the Basque Country. Retrieved from: [URL]
Ferretti, R. P. & Fan, Y. (2016). Argumentative writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 301–315). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García-Mila, M. & Andersen, C. (2007). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 29–45). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerns, P. (2023a). Building scientific knowledge in English: Integrating content, cognition and communication in secondary school CLIL biology. Journal of Language and Education, 9(3), 52–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023b). Qualitative insights and a first evaluation tool for teaching with cognitive discourse function: “Comparing” in the CLIL science classroom. Porta Linguarum, 401, 161–179. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
IKASELKAR. (2016). EKI Proiektua. NATuraren zientziak: energiaren beharra, arazo iturri (irakasleentzako gida). [Translated title: EKI Project. Nature Science: the need for energy, a source of problems (teachers’ guide)].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Izura, C., Cuetos, F., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). Lextale-Esp: A test to rapidly and efficiently assess the Spanish vocabulary size. Psicológica, 351, 49–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A. & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in science education (pp. 3–27). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Sciences Education, 20(7), 849–871. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. & Modrek, A. S. (2021). Choose your evidence. Scientific thinking where it may most count. Science & Education, 311, 21–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K. & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behaviour Research Methods, 441, 325–343. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lersundi, A. (2023). Arloetako alfabetatzearen azterketa batxilergoko diziplinarteko proiektu batean. Kasu azterketa. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mondragon University, Translated title: Analysis of subject-specific literacies in a multidisciplinary project in upper-secondary education. Case study]. [URL]
Li, X., Wang, W., & Li, Y. (2022). Systematically reviewing the potential of scientific argumentation to promote multidimensional conceptual change in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 44(7), 1165–1185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, F., & Stapleton, P. (2014). Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System, 451, 117–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2023). Systemic functional linguistics: The perfect match for content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(3), 245–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Llinares, A., & Nashaat-Sobhy, N. (2023). CLIL students’ academic language performance on a non-curricular topic: A comparison between high-exposure and low-exposure groups. English Teaching & Learning, 471, 337–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Llinares, A., & Nikula, T. (2023). CLIL students’ production of cognitive discourse functions: Comparing Finnish and Spanish contexts. Language and Education. Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F., & Rodríguez, L. (2014). Onset and expansion of L2 cognitive academic language proficiency in bilingual settings: CALP in CLIL. System, 471, 64–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F., & Trujillo, F. (2017). Languages of schooling in European policymaking: Present state and future outcomes. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 177–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F. (2017). Historical literacy in bilingual settings: Cognitive academic language in CLIL history narratives. Linguistics and Education, 371, 32–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manterola, I., Almgren, M., & Idiazabal, I. (2012). Basque L2 development in immersion school settings. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(3), 375–391. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martín-Gámez, C., & Erduran, S. (2018). Understanding argumentation about socio-scientific issues on energy: A quantitative study with primary pre-service teachers in Spain. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(4), 463–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meneses, A., Montenegro, M., Acevedo, D., Figueroa, J., & Hugo, E. (2023). Cross-disciplinary language changes in 4th graders as a predictor of the quality of written scientific explanation. Journal of Writing Research. Advance online publication: [URL].
Morton, T. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions: A bridge between content, literacy and language for teaching and assessment in CLIL. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 3(1), 7–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nashaat-Sobhy, N. (2018). Operationalizing “defining” from a cognitive discourse perspective for learners’ use. In S. M. Anwaruddin (Ed.), Knowledge mobilization in TESOL: Connecting research and practice (pp. 94–112). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F. (2016). More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and bilingual education. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 1–26). Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pavón, V., & Pérez, A. (2017). Enhancing disciplinary literacies: Languages of schooling and whole-school language projects in Spain. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 109–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polias, J. (2016). Apprenticing students into science: Doing, talking & writing scientifically. Lexis Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38(3), 444–456. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 155–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Coyle, Y., & Garcia, V. (2023). The effects of using cognitive discourse functions to instruct 4th-year children on report writing in a CLIL science class. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(4), 597–622. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rolstad, K. (2015). Second language instructional competence. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(5), 497–509. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sagasta, M. P. (2003). Acquiring writing skills in a third language: The positive effects of bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 27–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and instruction, 23(1), 23–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Santiago Schwarz, V., & Hamman-Ortiz, L. (2020). Systemic functional linguistics, teacher education, and writing outcomes for U.S. elementary English learners: A review of the literature. Journal of Second Language Writing, 491, 100727. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentation activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s Argument Pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 277–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students’ scientific writing. Science & Education, 121, 341–363. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tang, K. S. (2019). The role of language in scaffolding content & language integration in CLIL science classrooms. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7(2), 315–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whittaker, R., & McCabe, A. (2023). Expressing evaluation across disciplines in primary and secondary CLIL writing: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(3), 345–362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Arias-Hermoso, Roberto, Eneritz Garro Larrañaga, Ainara Imaz Agirre & Christiane Dalton-Puffer
2025. Producing cognitive discourse functions in disciplinary Basque writing: developmental patterns across secondary education and L1 profiles. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 28:7 ► pp. 744 ff. DOI logo
Arias-Hermoso, Roberto, Ainara Imaz Agirre & Eneritz Garro Larrañaga
2025. Multilingual disciplinary literacies: exploring developmental patterns of science writing across secondary education. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Arias-Hermoso, Roberto, Amaia Lersundi, Eneritz Garro Larrañaga & Ainara Imaz
2025. Derrigorrezko Bigarren Hezkuntzako (DBH) ikasleen argudiaketa zientifikoa: euskaraz, gaztelaniaz eta ingelesez idazten. Euskera Ikerketa Aldizkaria ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Rieder-Marschallinger, Silvia
2025. Integrating language and history teaching through cognitive discourse functions: A closer look at the learning outcomes of a design-based research project. System 135 ► pp. 103838 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue