Building bridges between different levels of education: Methodological proposals for CLIL at university

González, Jesús Ángel; Andrés, Javier

doi:10.6035/languagev.2013.5.2

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, González and Barbero (2013) conducted a qualitative research on the basis of in-depth interviews to identify the important elements of a CLIL-based methodology on the basis of teachers' self-perceptions and attitudes towards the programme. The participants of the study were primary and secondary native and nonnative English-speaking CLIL teachers from public and state subsidised schools who provided their insights into the most important elements of CLIL as applied in primary and secondary schools and how these could be extended to university classrooms.…”

Section: Research Methodology Used In the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fernandez-Santiago (2011) and González and Barbero (2013) analysed the different teaching methodologies that could be effectively implemented in CLIL environments. The former is a descriptive study that states that teaching methodologies should be related to language skills, training learners on academic reading comprehension, speaking for formal presentation of scientific content, writing academic articles in a formal and objective style and listening comprehension of specific and relevant information.…”

Section: Studies Focused On Teaching Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Secondly, they had to be published, peer-reviewed journal articles (not exclusively included in Journal Citation Reports), book chapters and/or books written in English. Thirdly, studies had to be published between 2004 and 2017 because although CLIL has been studied for more than two decades, research reports at the tertiary level started to emerge in 2004 (Costa and Coleman 2010 as cited in González & Barbero, 2013;Fernández 2009;Wilkinson, 2004;&Wilkinson andZegers 2007, 2008). Fourthly, only CLIL studies in which the English language was used as the medium of instruction were selected.…”

Section: Retrieval and Analysis Of Relevant Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They include studies on vocabulary development (Carloni, 2012), learning styles (Fernandez-Santiago, 2011), language proficiency (Klimova, 2013), language skills (Chostelidou & Griva, 2014;Hellekjaer, 2010;Hewitt, 2011;Jackson, 2012) and pragmatic competence (Moore & Dooly, 2010;Smit, 2010). Approximately, 46% of the studies observed professors' pragmatic competence (Braga Riera & Dominguez Romero, 2010;Dafouz E. , 2007;Dafouz Milne & Nuñez Perucha, 2010;Dafouz & Sanchez Garcia, 2013;Thogersen, 2013;Torres Martinez, 2013), language proficiency (Morgado & Coelho, 2013), vocabulary development (Watanabe, 2013) and teaching methodology (Fernandez-Santiago, 2011;González & Barbero, 2013 Ljosland, 2010;Smit, 2007Smit, , 2010 and language proficiency (Hou, 2013). From this analysis, it seems that research has given more importance to the role instructors play in CLIL classrooms as they are also users of the foreign language, in this case English.…”

Section: Participants Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Language and Teaching Methodology Features of CLIL in University Classrooms: A Research Synthesis

Dack

Argudo

Abad

2020

Colomb. appl. linguist. j

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is a dual focus educational approach widely used in European primary, secondary and tertiary education institutions in which content subjects included in the mainstream curriculum are taught through a foreign language, usually English. This paper presents a systematic review on relevant existing literature on the application of the CLIL approach in university classrooms. A total of 22 studies were identified and chosen for further analysis; the categories emerged from the analysis itself. These studies, which focused on language and methodological features, were explored to determine the research trends in terms of location, methodology, participants, data collection instruments, focus, teaching methodology and language focus. The results of the review show a trend to examine classroom discourses and the development of pragmatic competence in CLIL classrooms. As a result of the review, the paper offers suggestions for future research on the CLIL approach in university classrooms as more tertiary education institutions around the globe are adopting English as the language of instruction.

show abstract

Section: Research Methodology Used In the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studies Focused On Teaching Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Retrieval and Analysis Of Relevant Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Participants Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Language and Teaching Methodology Features of CLIL in University Classrooms: A Research Synthesis

Dack

Argudo

Abad

2020

Colomb. appl. linguist. j

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, Gonzalez and Barbero (2013) report that evidence for the potential benefits of a moderate use of L1 in learners' language development can be found in a number of CLIL studies (e.g. Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009;Antón & DiCamilla, 1998;Storch & Aldosari, 2010;Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL

Lin

2015

Language, Culture and Curriculum

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is a rapidly growing area of both research and practice in all parts of the world, especially in Europe and Asia. As a young discipline, CLIL has a good potential of distinguishing itself from monolingual L2 immersion education models by becoming more flexible and balanced about the role of L1 in CLIL lessons. Although recent years have witnessed increasing research on the potential role of L1 in foreign language teaching [e.g. Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. 2009. First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teacher, 42, 1-14], monolingual immersion ideologies are still dominant in many contexts in the world (especially in Southeast Asia) because of a whole host of ideologies. The beliefs affecting medium of instruction policies and practice have their roots in the traditional tenets (e.g. the maximum input hypothesis) in the discipline of second language acquisition (SLA). Although these tenets are increasingly being countered by recent research in multilingualism [see May, S. (Ed.). (2014). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education. New York: Routledge, for a critique of these tenets], SLA still has an influence on pedagogies in both immersion and CLIL programmes. In this paper, I shall first critically review these deep-rooted monolingual tenets. Then, I shall discuss how we can conceptualise the potential role of L1 in CLIL and by extension in content-based instruction (CBI), as both CLIL and immersion programmes are considered to be key approaches to CBI. I shall conclude with suggestions for future research in CLIL.

show abstract