CLIL in Pharmacology: Enabling Student Voice
Keywords:Partial CLIL, modular CLIL, student voice, internationalization, lecture modality.
Over the past decades, the integration of content and language in education has been gaining ground in different design formats and at various levels of education worldwide. This study describes a pilot project carried out at the School of Pharmacy of an Italian University, using a partial-CLIL format, as this was the only model accepted for experimentation by the School. The terms partial CLIL and adjunct CLIL describe different degrees of integration. Since this was the first trial with students from the Pharmacy program, the main concern was finding out how they would respond to such an “‘innovative” approach. Despite the plethora of literature available on CLIL in higher education, there is a lack of research regarding students’ views on the issue; no consideration seems to be given to the main protagonists who undergo this “novel” approach. Hence, the aim of the study was to seek students’ voice on the experience—their thoughts and feelings. Student perceptions are essential for future didactical applications. A mixed method approach to data collection was employed to give strong validity to the data (direct observation, focus group interview followed by a survey questionnaire). The preliminary findings gathered from the qualitative and quantitative analysis contribute positively to the organization of CLIL courses in higher education. Overall, the results reveal positive student views, but, at the same time, encourage reflections for teachers and stakeholders on how to prepare students for CLIL lessons and on structuring CLIL programs for future implementations.
To reference this article (APA) / Para citar este artículo (APA) / Para citar este artigo (APA)
Alberch, P. (1996). Language in contemporary science: The tool and the cultural icon. In R. Chartier & P. Corsi (Eds). Sciences et langues en Europe (pp. 257–264). Centre Alexandre Koyré.
Atamanova, I. & Bogomaz, S. (2011). Language learning through content: What can help university students develop their communicative competence in a professional field? In B. Swaffield & I. Guske (Eds.).
Global encounters. Pedagogical paradigms and educational practices
(pp. 93–105). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Penguin Education.
Belluigi, D. Z. (2015). Evaluation of teaching and courses: Reframing traditional understandings and practices. https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/evaluation-of-teaching-and-courses-reframing-traditional-understa
Bligh, D. A. (1971). What’s the use of lectures? Penguin Education.
Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford University Press.
Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: “Student voice” in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00363.x
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED184334.pdf
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.). Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–50). Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center California State University.
Cummins, J. (1994). Knowledge, power and identity in teaching English as a second language. In F. Genesee (Ed.). Educating second language children. The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community
(pp. 33–58). Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.). Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd Ed., Vol. 2, pp. 71–83). Springer Science + Business Media LLC.
Czerniawski, G., & Kidd, W. (Eds). (2011). The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Dafouz, E., Núñez, B., & Sancho, C. (2007). Analysing stance in a CLIL University context: Non-native speaker use of personal pronouns and modal verbs. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 647–662. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb464.0
Fielding, M. (2011). Student voice and the possibility of radical democratic education: Re-narrating forgotten histories, developing alternative futures. In G. Czerniawski, & W. Kidd (Eds). The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide (pp. 3–17). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Fielding, M. & McGregor, J. (2005). Deconstructing student voice: new spaces for dialogue or new opportunities for surveillance? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), 11–15 April 2005, Montreal, Canada.
Filice, S. (2012). Integrated learning for an integrated world: Facing the challenges of language education. In R. Bergami, S. L. Pucci & A. Schuller (Eds.). The effects of global learning: Teaching the world about the world (pp. 32–41). http://www.theworldwideforum.org/resources/
Fleming, D. (2013). Student voice in Irish post-primary schools – A drama of voices (Unpublished PhD thesis). University College Cork, Ireland. https://cora.ucc.ie/handle/10468/1284
Fleming, D. (2015). Student voice: An emerging discourse in Irish education policy. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(2), 223–242.
French, S., & Kennedy, G. (2016). Reassessing the value of university lectures. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(6), 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1273213
Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion (Educational Practice Reports, No 11). National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Center for Applied Linguistics.
Greere, A., & Räsänen, A. (2008). LanQua Subproject on content and language integrated learning: Redefining ‘CLIL’–towards multilingual competence. Year One Report. LLAS. https://www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/20-01-2014/lanqua_subproject_on_clil.pdf
Grion, V. (2017). “Student voice” in Italy: The state of the art. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education, 1(20), 1–4. http://repository.brynmawr.edu/tlthe/vol1/iss20/3
Grion, V., & Dettori, F. (2014). Student voice: Nuove traiettorie della ricerca educativa. In M. Tomarchio & S. Ulivieri (Eds.). Pedagogia militante. Diritti, culture, territori (pp. 852–857). Edizioni ETS.
Hamel, R. E. (2007). The dominance of English in the international scientific periodical literature and the future of language use in science. Aila Review 20, 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.20.06ham
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. State University of New York Press.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Howe, K. R. (2012). Mixed methods, triangulation, and causal explanation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437187
Johnson, D. (1992). Approaches to research in second language learning. Longman.
Kasper, L. F. (1997). The impact of content-based instructional programs on the academia progress of ESL students. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00035-5
Keck, C. M., & Biber, D. (2004). Modal use in spoken and written university registers. In R. Facchinetti & F. Palmer (Eds.). English modality in perspective. Genre analysis and contrastive studies (pp. 3–25). Peter Lang.
Mark, M. M. & Shortland, R. L. (1987). Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. In M. M. Mark & R. L. Shortland (Eds.). Multiple methods in program evaluation (pp. 95–99). Jossey-Bass.
Martin, L. (2017, March 20). Why student feedback is so important? Educator Impact. https://www.educatorimpact.com
Martin, L. (2018, February 19). Student Voice—Making Student Feedback Work. In Educator Impact. https://www.educatorimpact.com
Mason, J. (2006). Six strategies for mixing methods and linking data in social science research. Real Life Methods working paper. University of Manchester. https://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/482/1/0406_six%2520strategies%2520for%2520mixing%2520methods.pdf
McDougald, J. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes, perceptions and experiences in CLIL: A look at content and language. Colombian Applied Linguistic Journal, 17(1), 25–41 http://dx.doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2015.1.a02
McKay, S. L. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Milla Lara, M. D., & Casas Pedrosa, A. V. (2018). Teacher perspectives on CLIL implementation: A within-group comparison of key variables. Porta Linguarum, 29, (159–180). http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PL_numero29/8_MARIA%20DOLORES%20MILLA.pdf
Mitra, D. (2003). Student voice in school reform: Reframing student-teacher relationships. Magill Journal of Education, 38(2), 289–304. https://mje.mcgill.ca/article/view/8686
Montgomery, S. (2004). Of towers, walls, and fields: Perspectives on language in science. Science, 303(5662), 1333–1335. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1095204
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage.
Papaja, K. (2014). Focus on CLIL: A qualitative evaluation of content and language integrated learning in Polish secondary education. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Parker, S. (1997). Reflective teaching in the postmodern world. A manifesto for education in postmodernity. Open University Press.
Perez-Crespo, M.M. (2015). CLIL in Andalusia: Study on teachers’ view. (Unpublished thesis). Universidad de Jaén, Jaén, Spain. http://hdl.handle.net/10953.1/2190
Riazi, M., & Candlin, C. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 47(02), 135–173. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000505
Rudduck, J. (2007). Student voice, student engagement and school reform. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.). International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 587–610). Springer.
Rudduck, J. (2005). Pupil voice is here to stay! Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. QCA. University of Cambridge, UK. https://www.qca.org.uk/futures/
Rudduck, J., & Flutter, J. (2004). How to improve your school: Giving pupils a voice. Continuum.
Rudduck, J., & Flutter, J. (2000). Pupil participation and pupil perspective: “Carving a new order of experience.” Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640050005780
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspective on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 209–239. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000145
Short, D. (1994). Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating language, culture, and social studies. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 581–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587309
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. Tesol Quarterly, 23(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587333
Stavrianeas, S., & Stewart, M. (2011). iScience and general education: Science literacy for all students. In B. Swaffield & I. Guske (Eds.). Global encounters. Pedagogical paradigms and educational practices (pp. 69–77). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Toshalis, E., & Nakkula, M. (2012). Motivation, engagement and student voice. (The students at the centre series). Jobs for the Future. https://studentsatthecenterhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Motivation-Engagement-Student-Voice-Students-at-the-Center-1.pdf
Verjano-Chicote, R. (2017). Primary teachers’ perspectives on CLIL implementation in Mataró (Unpublished thesis). Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, Barcelona, Spain. https://reunir.unir.net/handle/123456789/6132
Wilkinson, R. (Ed.). (2004). Integrating content and language. Meeting the challenge of multilingual Higher Education. Maastricht Universitaire Pers.
Wolff, D. (2005). Project D3–CLILmatrix. The CLIL quality matrix. (Central workshop report 6/2005, Graz, Austria, 3-5 November 2005). European Centre for Modern Languages. http://www.ecml.at
Wolff, D. (2009). Content and language integrated learning. In K. Knapp & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.). Handbook of foreign language communication and learning (pp. 545–572). Walter de Gruyter.
Copyright (c) 2020 Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
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.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).