The effect of proficiency on <scp>CLIL</scp> benefits in Engineering students in <scp>S</scp>pain

Aguilar, Marta; Muñoz, Carmen

doi:10.1111/ijal.12006

Cited by 107 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these, five have used national or international standardised testing instruments (Lin & Morrison 2010;Rogier 2012;Aguilar & Muñoz 2014;Yang 2015); and two have used instruments created by the researchers specifically for the purposes of their study (e.g. Pessoa, Miller & Kaufer 2014).…”

Section: Impact Of Emi On English Language Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After outlining why a systematic review of research in English medium instruction (EMI) in higher education (HE) is urgently required, we briefly situate the rapidly growing EMI phenomenon in the broader field of research in which content and language have been considered and compare HE research outputs with those from other phases of education. An in-depth review of 83 studies in HE documents the growth of EMI in different geographical areas. We describe studies which have investigated university teachers' beliefs and those of students before attempting to synthesise the evidence on whether teaching academic subjects through the medium of English as a second language (L2) is of benefit to developing English proficiency without a detrimental effect on content learning. We conclude that key stakeholders have serious concerns regarding the introduction and implementation of EMI despite sometimes recognising its inevitability. We also conclude that the research evidence to date is insufficient to assert that EMI benefits language learning nor that it is clearly detrimental to content learning. There are also insufficient studies demonstrating, through the classroom discourse, the kind of practice which may lead to beneficial outcomes. This insufficiency, we argue, is partly due to research methodology problems both at the micro and macro level.at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi

show abstract

Section: Impact Of Emi On English Language Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…How aware of their linguistic progress are students and how do they qualify it? Gradually, studies focused on particular skills (Ruiz de Zarobe 2010, Navés 2011) and the effect of language level on learning content (Aguilar and Muñoz 2013) are appearing, but more solid and standardised evidence is needed for the language learning taking place under CLIL/EMI conditions, particularly in higher education contexts.…”

Section: The Need For Evidence-based Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the impact of CLIL on language skills: a CEFR-based approach for higher education

Jimenez-Munoz

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advocates of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) have extolled the virtues of this approach to fostering both content and language alike. However, the generalised and varied implementation of EMI (English as a Medium of Instruction) in universities worldwide has led many lecturers to question these claims. This paper presents a CEFR (Common European Framework)-based model for measuring the impact of EMI at the tertiary level, the aim being to provide further evidence of the progress made in language-learning in modules taught in a foreign language. Using questionnaires based on the revised and refined CEFR descriptors from EAQUALS (Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality in Language Services), students answer an initial self-assessment survey about their background and language skills, which is controlled by a final questionnaire targeting their perceived progress throughout their instruction. Designed from the ground up with the CEFR as a backdrop, this method can be easily tallied with objective assessment to uncover data about students' linguistic performance in CLIL contexts. Keywords: CLIL, CEFR, EMI, educational research, plurilingualism I. CLIL AS A CONTESTED APPROACHMost universities around the globe now offer full or partial degrees taught through a foreign language. English has long been the language of science, but these degrees have made English "the language of higher education in Europe" (Coleman 2006: 1). Part programmatic development, part explicit competition in a wider tertiary environment, English has become the de-facto language for academic discourse and those refusing to provide English-taught modules endanger their global scientific visibility (Alexander 2006). Particularly in Europe, there is a strong consensus on the methodological approach to be used when a content module or degree is taught through a language other than the students' mother tongue (often in English as the Medium of Instruction, or EMI). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) "is part of mainstream school education in the great majority of countries at primary and secondary levels" (Eurydice Measuring the impact of CLIL on language skills: a CEFR-based approach for higher educationLanguage Value 6 (1), 28-50 http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue 29 2006: 13) and, more recently, it has also become a major move towards multilingualism at the tertiary level (Fortanet-Gómez 2013). Unlike immersion programmes, multilingualism and CLIL assume that the role of language for the participants need not be transparent for either lecturer or student (Lagasabaster and Sierra 2010) and devise interventions to foster linguistic skills alongside content.Rather than being a strict method, CLIL is "essentially methodological" (Marsh 2008: 244). Its theorists claim it fosters a flexible, inclusive approach which can be applied through many specific methodologies, since both content and language are integrated. . Lecturers nevertheless attempt to overcome these linguistic hurdles with a number of mediatio...

show abstract

“…CLIL, which has been researched from different perspectives (Juan-Garua, Salazar-Noguera 2015; Meyer et al 2015), is also a source of increasing research activity in higher education (Coleman 2006;Dafouz, Núñez 2009;Jexenflicker, Dalton-Puffer 2010;Izumi et al 2012;Fortanet-Gómez 2013;Aguilar, Muñoz 2014;Fürstenberg, Kletzenbauer 2015;Jiménez Muñoz 2015). As the studies show, instructors have integrated content and language to various degrees and with mixed results at the tertiary level; language-supportive methodologies especially are widely varied (Arnó-Macià, Mancho-Barés 2015).…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

English-Taught Programs and Scaffolding in CLIL Settings: a Case Study

Carloni

2018

Studi E Ricerche

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the effectiveness of scaffolding provided in a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) environment at the University of Urbino in Italy, as perceived by a group of students attending CLIL courses taught in English at the university. Data were gathered through an online post-course questionnaire that learners answered on a voluntary basis. Results show that, overall, students perceived the scaffolding that was provided as rather effective, although some shortcomings emerged.

show abstract

The effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in Engineering students in Spain

Cited by 107 publications

References 40 publications

A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education

A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education

Measuring the impact of CLIL on language skills: a CEFR-based approach for higher education

English-Taught Programs and Scaffolding in CLIL Settings: a Case Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About