Thinking skills in Primary Education: An Analysis of CLIL Textbooks in Spain

María Candelaria Romeu Peyró; Enrique Cerezo Herrero; Encarna Llamas

Thinking skills in Primary Education: An Analysis of CLIL Textbooks in Spain

María Candelaria Romeu Peyró ^[1] ; Enrique Cerezo Herrero ^[2] ; Encarna Llamas Pérez ^[3]
1. [1] Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera
  
  Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera
  
  Valencia, España
2. [2] Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
  
  Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
  
  Valencia, España
3. [3] Universidad Nebrija
  
  Universidad Nebrija
  
  Madrid, España
Mostrar afiliaciones +
Localización: Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, ISSN 1697-7467, Nº. 33, 2020, págs. 183-200
Idioma: inglés
Títulos paralelos:
- Habilidades de pensamiento en Educación Primaria: Un análisis de libros de texto AICLE en España
Enlaces
- Texto completo (pdf)

Dialnet Métricas: 1 Cita

Resumen
- español
  En el presente trabajo se realizará un análisis de libros de texto AICLE partiendo de la taxonomía de Bloom y de la posterior revisión de Anderson y Krathwohl. El objetivo es comprobar si los docentes disponen de un soporte bibliográfico coherente con los principios didácticos que la metodología AICLE impulsa. Se aplica como herramienta de análisis la tabla bidimensional desarrollada por estos autores, considerando la dimensión cognitiva y la dimensión de conocimiento. Dentro de la dimensión de conocimiento, el estudio se detiene en el nivel de conocimiento metacognitivo. Se analizan seis libros de texto de Natural Science de sexto curso de Educación Primaria diseñados por diferentes editoriales y actualmente en uso. Se pretende precisamente comprobar si estos desarrollan las habilidades de pensamiento de orden superior (HOTS), siendo estas destrezas necesarias para el correcto desarrollo de este enfoque. Se concluye que el 66% de los materiales analizados no desarrollan mínimamente los HOTS para una correcta implementación del enfoque AICLE, por lo que resulta necesario un cambio en la elaboración de materiales didácticos.
- English
  In this work an analysis of CLIL textbooks based on Bloom’s taxonomy and the subsequent revision made by Anderson and Krathwohl will be conducted. The objective is to ascertain whether teachers have at their disposal a bibliographical support consistent with the didactic tenets that the CLIL methodology promotes. The bidimensional table proposed by these authors has been utilized as a tool of analysis, taking both the cognitive and knowledge dimensions into account. Within the latter, the study focuses on the metacognitive knowledge level. Six Natural Science textbooks for sixth year of Primary Education, designed by different publishers and currently in use, have been analyzed. These textbooks have been designed according to the CLIL approach. We purport to verify whether these materials develop High Order Thinking Skills (HOTS), which are necessary for the proper development of this approach. It can be concluded that 66% of the analyzed materials do not promote the necessary HOTS for the proper implementation of the CLIL approach. Therefore, a change in the elaboration of textbooks is deemed necessary.
Referencias bibliográficas
- Alexander, P., Dinsmore, D., Fox, E., Grossnickle, E., Loughlin, S., Maggioni, L. & Winters, F.I. (2011). Higher order thinking and knowledge:...
- Alonso-Belmonte, I. & Fernández-Agüero, M. (2018). The C of cognition in CLIL teacher education: Some insights from classroom-Based research....
- Amestoy de Sánchez, M. (2002). La investigación sobre el desarrollo y la enseñanza de las habilidades del pensamiento. Revista Electrónica...
- Anderson, L. & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Educational Objectives....
- Assaly, I.R. & Smadi, O.M. (2015). Using Bloom’s taxonomy to evaluate the cognitive levels of master class textbook’s questions. English...
- Barbero, T. (2012). Assessment tools and practices in CLIL. In F. Quartapelle (Eds.), Assessment and evaluation in CLIL (pp. 38-56). AECLIL-EACEA.
- Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Michigan: Longman. Couto-Cantero, P. & Bobadilla-Pérez, M. (2018). Ten fundamentals...
- Coyle, D. (1999). Sporting students in content and language integrated contexts: planning for effective classrooms, in J. Masih (Eds.), Learning...
- Coyle, D.; Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
- Dale, L., Es, V.D. & Tanner, R. (2010). CLIL skills. Leiden, the Netherlands: University of Leiden, Expertisecentrum mvt.
- Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. John Benjamins Publishing. De Bono, E....
- Difabio de Anglat, H. (2005). El Critical thinking movement y la educación intelectual. Estudios sobre Educación, 9, 167-187.
- French, J. & Rhoder, G. (2011). Teaching thinking dkills. Theory and practice. Routledge.
- González Romero, R. (2015). Análisis holístico, diacrónico y multimodal de libros de texto de inglés como lengua extrajera: una nueva forma...
- Hahn, S. (2018). The problem of materials in CLIL – needs and perspectives of Austrian CLIL history teachers. Magistra der Philosophie. Wein,...
- Heer, R. (2012). Model of taxonomy. Iowa State University: Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching.
- Higgins, S. (2015). A Recent history of teaching. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J.C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of...
- Higgins, S. & Baumfield, V. (1998). A Defense of teaching general thinking skills. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 32(3), 391-398.
- Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
- Igbaria, K.A. (2013). A content analysis of the WH-Questions in the EFL textbooks of horizons. International Educational Studies, 6(7), 200-224.
- Koksal, D. & Ulum, Ö.G. (2018). Language assessment through Bloom’s Taxonomy. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 14(2), 76-88.
- Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-264.
- Kumar, R., Chowdhry, B.S. & Kazi, H. (2017). Identifying cognitive weaknesses in students larning through Bloom’s taxonomy. JICTRA 8(2),...
- Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembre, para la mejora de la calidad educativa. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 295, Diciembre 10th, 2013, 97858-97921.
- Marzano, R. (2019). The Handbook for the new art and science of teaching. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
- Mayer, R.E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41:4. 226-232.
- McGregor, D. (2007). Developing thinking developing learning. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.
- McGuiness, C. (1999). From thinking skills to thinking classrooms: A review and evaluation of approaches for developing pupils’ thinking....
- McGuiness, C. (2000). Caught in the ACTs. Teaching Thinking, 1(2), 48-52.
- McNamara, S. (2018). Aligning content to cognitive taxonomies: Art history syllabus design. Journal of Policy Studies 56, 55-61.
- Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. & Frigols, M.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual...
- Meyer, O. (2010). Towards quality-CLIL: successful planning and teaching strategies. Pulso, 33, 11-29.
- Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Imhof, M. & Connolly, T. (2018). Beyond CLIL: Fostering student and teacher engagement for personal growth and deeper...
- Ministerio de Educación, Ciencia y Deporte (2011). Programa integral de aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras. Conferencia de Educación, 23 de...
- Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional (MEFP) (2018). Datos y cifras. Curso escolar 2018-19. Secretaría General Técnica. Subdirección...
- Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Elliott, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S., Miller, J. & Newton, D.P. (2005). Frameworks for thinking: A handbook...
- Newsome, G. (2000). A Review of some promising approaches to understanding and improving thinking skills. Journal of Research and Development...
- Nickerson, R.D. (1986). Reflections on reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Otto, A. & Estrada, J.L. (2019). Towards and understanding of CLIL assessment practices in a European context: Main assessment tools and...
- Paul, R. (1982). Teaching critical thinking in the strong sense. Informal Logic Newsletter, 4(2), 2-7.
- Pintrich, P.R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.
- Pohl, M. (2006). Still learning to think thinking to learn. Into Bloom’s and beyond. planning with a thinking focus. Hawker Brownlow.
- Reynolds, S.T. (2019). Validating Bloom’s revised taxonomy as a rubric for assessing middle school students’ levels of thinking. PhD Dissertation....
- Saido, G.M., Siraj, S., Nordin, A.B.B. & Al_Amedy, O.S. (2015). Higher Order Thinking Skills Among Secondary School, Students in Science...
- Santo-Tomás, M. (2011). From low to high order thinking skills in CLIL science primary textbooks: A challenge for teachers and publishers....
- Schietroma, E. (2019). Innovative STEM lessons, CLIL and ICT in multicultural classes. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society 15(1),...
- Sulistyo, G.H. (2019). Critical thinking: From psychological perspectives to pedagogical prospectives in EFL teaching contexts. Proceedings...
- Surmont, J., Struys, E., Van den Noort, M. & Van de Craen, P. (2016). The effects of CLIL on mathematical content learning: A longitudinal...
- Swartz, R.J, Costa, A., Beyer, B., Reagan, R. & Kallick, B. (2008). Thinking based learning. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon Pub.
- Swartz, R.J. & Perkins, D.N. (2016). Teaching thinking. Issues and approaches. Routledge.
- Van de Craen, P., Mondt, K., Allain, L. & Gao, Y. (2007). Why and how CLIL works. An outline for a CLIL Theory. Vienna English Working...
- Van den Noort, M., Struys, E., Bosch, P., Jaswetz, L. Perriard, B., Yeo, S., Barisch, P., Vermeire, K., Lee, S.H. & Lim, S. (2019). Does...
- Wenglinsky, H. (2004). Facts of critical thinking skills. What NAEP results say. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 32-36.