Integrating language and content related to different university degree programs

Pablo Marcelo Oliva Parera, María Pilar Nuñez Delgado

Abstract


This article shows the description of an experience involving a group of graduate-level university students taking a CLIL (content and language integrated learning) course in Spanish as a foreign language. An important contribution from this study is to show that it is possible to achieve the integration of content and language by incorporating the content of the students’ interests related to the concentrations of their master’s degrees. This group of students is taking a Spanish class at the low and mid-intermediate level (ACTFL, 2012). Their fields of their Master’s programs varied from international policy, to environmental studies, to business. The students had the opportunity to work with content related to their programs over the course of a semester. The instructor used an adaptation of the European Language Portfolio in order to measure part of their performance in class.

Keywords


Autonomy; curriculum development; portfolios; content and language integrated learning; motivation.

Full Text:

PDF

References


ACTFL (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Recuperado de http://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012].

Arter, J., & Spandel V. (1992). Using Portfolios of Student Work in Instruction and Assessment. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Education Laboratory.

Bailey, K., & Nunan, D. (2009). Exploring Second Language Classroom Research: A Comprehensive Guide. Kentucky: Cengage.

Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning.Language Teaching, 40,21–40.

Breeze, R. (2014). Identifying student needs in English- medium university courses. En Integration of theory and practice in CLIL (pp.143-160). Amsterdam, Nueva York:

Rodopi.

Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s Talk: Learning to use Language Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carrasco, J., & Calderero Hernández, J. (2000). Aprendo a investigar en educación.RIALP.

Clément, R., & Kruidenier, B. (1983). Orientations in second language acquisition: The effects of ethnicity, milieu, and target language on their emergence. Language Learning, 33, 273-291.

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for language:Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coyle, D., Hood, P., &Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL. Londres: Cambridge University Press.

Crandall, J., & Kaufman, D. (2003). Content-based instruction in Higher Education Settings. Alexandria: TESOL.

Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento: California Associationfor Bilingual Education.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. En C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dörnyei, Z, &Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow:Longman.

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System. En Z. Dörnyei y E. Ushioda (Eds.)Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp.9-42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual Differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2013)(Eds). English-Medium Instruction at Universities. Global Challenges. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Dupuy, B. (2000). Content-based instruction: Can it help ease the transition from beginning

to advanced foreign language classes? Foreign Language Annal, 33, 205-223.

Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2013). CLIL in Higher Education: Towards a Multilingual Language Policy (Bilingual Education and Bilingualism). New York: Multilingual Matters.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching ESL children in the Mainstream Classroom. Porstmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gómez Camacho, A. (2013). El aprendizaje integrado de la lengua española y los contenidos de áreas no lingüísticas en los proyectos lingüísticos de centro. Porta Linguarum 20, 103-115.

Grabbe, W., & Stoller, F. (1997). A six T's approach to content based instruction. En M.Snow y D. Brinton. (Eds.). The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 78-94). New York: Longman.

Hoyos Pérez, M. (2013). La enseñanza integrada de lenguas y contenidos en formación profesional. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos,19,109-145.

Jourdenais, R., & Springer, S. (Eds). (2005). Content Tasks and Projects in the Language Classroom: 2004 Conference proceedings. Monterey, CA: Monterey Institute of

International Studies.

Klenowsky, V. (2012). Desarrollo de Portafolios: para el aprendizaje y la evaluación.Madrid: Narcea, SA.

Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. En W. Van Patten & J. Williams. (Eds.). Theories in second language acquisition (pp.201—224). New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Lasagabaster,D., & Rúiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.). (2010). ClIL in Spain; implementations, results and teacher training. Newcastle: Cambridge University Press.

Lyster, R., & Ballinger S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15, 279-288.

McDonough, S. (1981). Psychology in foreign language teaching. London: Alien and Unwin.

Nuñez Delgado, M.P., González Vázquez A., & Trujillo Sáez F. (2006). La formación del

profesorado de español como Segunda Lengua. Situación actual y propuestas,Textos de Didáctica de la Lengua y la Literatura, 42, 65-80.

Papai, N. (2000). Literacy development through content-based instruction: A case study.Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 16, 81-95.

Shaw, P, (1997). With One Stone: Models of Instruction and Their Curricular Implications in an Advanced Content-Based Foreign Language Program. En S.B. Stryker & B. L. Leaver (Eds.). Content-Based Instruction in Foreign Language

Education: Models and Methods (pp.261-282). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Ushioda, E. (2006). Language motivation in a reconfigured Europe: access, identity, autonomy, Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 27, 148–161.

van Lier, L. (2004). The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: a Sociocultural Perspective. Boston; Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Vygostsky, L. (1978). Problems of Method, Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 52–75. Trad. M. Cole.

Woźniak, M. (2013). CLIL in Pharmacy: A case of collaboration between content and

language lecturers. Language Value, 5,107-128.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.






This journal and its papers are published with the Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). You are free to share copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format if you: give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made; don’t use our material for commercial purposes; don’t remix, transform, or build upon the material.

Indexed in: DOAJLinguistics Abstracts Online,Google ScholarsMLA Bibliography - Language, Linguistics and LiteratureOpen J-Gate,Directory of Research Journals Indexing, EBSCOProQueste-Revist@sPublindexERICEmerging Sources Citation IndexORE (Open-Access Research in English Language Teaching)Cabell's International (The White List)Red Iberoamericana de Innovación y Conocimiento Científico (Redib)

Email: laclil@unisabana.edu.co