CLIL teachers’ professionalization

Bonnet, Andreas; Breidbach, Stephan

doi:10.1075/lllt.47.16bon

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bovellan, 2014;Moate, 2011), Germany (e.g. Bonnet & Breidbach, 2017;Massler, 2012;Viebrock, 2012), Ireland (e.g. Ceallaigh et al, 2017), Italy (e.g.…”

Section: Teachers' Beliefs In Clilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spokes in the Wheels of CLIL for Multilingualism or How Monolingual Ideologies Limit Teacher Training

Martí¹,

Portolés²

2019

ELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In line with van Kampen et al.’s (2018) research about specialist and practitioner perceptions on the goals for CLIL in the Netherlands, the present study addresses Hüttner, Dalton-Puffer and Smit’s (2013) call for investigating teachers’ beliefs about CLIL in European countries like Spain where this teaching approach is highly institutionalized. Unlike the aforementioned studies, though, ours focuses on novice subject teachers in Primary education. More specifically, it links teacher cognition and pre-service or initial teacher training with the aim of exploring the extent to which student teachers’ beliefs mediate their education. The analysis of how these student teachers understand the aims and language principles of CLIL unveils the role that a set of monolingual ideologies (e.g. “the English only policy”) play in the conceptualization and consequent acceptance or disapproval of this teaching approach. As we also pay heed to the impact of tertiary instruction on participants’ beliefs, implications for CLIL teacher preparation programmes are discussed.

show abstract

“…Bovellan, 2014;Moate, 2011), Germany (e.g. Bonnet & Breidbach, 2017;Massler, 2012;Viebrock, 2012), Ireland (e.g. Ceallaigh et al, 2017), Italy (e.g.…”

Section: Teachers' Beliefs In Clilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spokes in the Wheels of CLIL for Multilingualism or How Monolingual Ideologies Limit Teacher Training

Martí¹,

Portolés²

2019

ELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The observed lack of corrective feedback by the BHTs on students' spoken English could be another example of a limited focus on specific L2 teaching. Also, there often is the pressure of the subject curriculum (Bonnet & Breidbach, 2017) which could lead to a more prominent teacher focus on covering subject content and spending less time on developing students' L2 proficiency. A CLIL subject teacher after all only has two or three lessons per week to teach the subject in the L2, but the students have about 15 hours per week to learn and use the L2 in five or six different subjects (Europees Platform, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Content and Language Integrated Learning in Dutch bilingual education

Oattes

Oostdam

Graaff

et al. 2018

DuJAL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This small-scale observational study explores how Dutch bilingual education history teachers (BHTs) focus on the L2 component in their CLIL-lessons. We observed and rated eight BHTs on five language teaching categories. Results show that Dutch BHTs focus more strongly on using the L2 to teach subject content and that they tend to be less engaged in teaching specific second language topics, such as focus on form or language learning strategies. Further results and suggestions for improving the BHTs’ L2 focus are discussed together with a plea for a CLIL definition that is more in line with the everyday reality of the CLIL classroom.

show abstract

“…Compared to mainstream education in only one language, CLIL challenges teachers by adding to their workload (Banegas, 2012;Bonnet & Breidbach, 2017;Moate, 2014). CLIL teachers often teach at least partly in a language that is a foreign or a second language for them and for most of their students.…”

Section: Background Clil Teachers' Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies from various contexts show that CLIL teachers find their work challenging and often struggle with their target language skills, methodological issues and the time constraints of balancing both language and content teaching (e.g., Coyle et al, 2010;Moate, 2013;Ó Caellaigh et al, 2017). This is particularly evident in contexts where CLIL education has been imposed top-down by policy makers or school administration and the teachers lack autonomy, control and sense of ownership in their work (Bonnet & Breidbach, 2017). Target language requirements may also put stress on secondary school teachers who in many contexts are content experts having no expertise in the target language or knowledge of language pedagogy (e.g., Skinnari & Bovellan, 2016).…”

Section: Background Clil Teachers' Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although CLIL is not a recent educational innovation in many European contexts, it is still growing in scope and scale. Because of this, many teachers still encounter it as a novelty and often as a major change in their work (Bonnet & Breidbach, 2017). Studies from diverse contexts have shown how CLIL teachers transform, adjust and often struggle in their demanding task (e.g., Moate, 2011a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

CLIL Challenges: Secondary School CLIL Teachers’ Voices and Experienced Agency in Three European Contexts

Skinnari¹

2020

JPLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This qualitative interview study focuses on CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) teacher agency in three European contexts, Austria, Finland and Andalusia, Spain. The aim of the study is to understand how individual CLIL teachers experience their agency when encountering challenges in their work and to demonstrate the multifaceted quality of their agency. The study employs the Listening Guide method (Gilligan, 2015) to listen to the voices of three secondary school subject teachers from three diverse contexts. The analysis shows that CLIL challenges both empowered and disempowered the teachers depending on how meaningful they found their work and what their possibilities to act were in their specific contexts. Some of the teachers’ CLIL experiences were similar, for instance, struggling alone with lack of support. However, these challenges did not affect the teachers’ agency in a straightforward way. In spite of the seemingly comparable challenges, the teachers described their unique experiences and ways to cope with the demands of their work in different ways. For example, using two languages or making their own materials was for some invigorating and for others problematic. In addition, during the interviews individual teachers also reported about their experiences in various ways, explaining, elaborating and balancing their thoughts with varying expressions of agency. Particularly significant for the teachers’ experiences of agency appeared to be the beginning of their CLIL career, however, their initial experiences of agency did not endure. The study shows that CLIL teacher agency is multivoiced, dynamic and often vulnerable.

show abstract

CLIL teachers’ professionalization

Cited by 16 publications

References 23 publications

Spokes in the Wheels of CLIL for Multilingualism or How Monolingual Ideologies Limit Teacher Training

Spokes in the Wheels of CLIL for Multilingualism or How Monolingual Ideologies Limit Teacher Training

Content and Language Integrated Learning in Dutch bilingual education

CLIL Challenges: Secondary School CLIL Teachers’ Voices and Experienced Agency in Three European Contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About