Developing autonomy through portfolios and networks in CLIL lectures
Keywords:Portafolios, redes de alfabetismo, AICLE, clases magistrales.
This study has explored the use of portfolios and of awareness-raising of literacy networks in a CLIL lecture preparation class for first-year undergraduates in a Japanese university. It is argued that CLIL-related literature has a paucity of practical studies investigating these two elements essential to autonomy-building, particularly for students who have been previously mostly exposed to teacher-centered modes of instruction. Questionnaires asking students their perceptions of portfolio use and self-study were gathered over three years and were coupled with a one year small-scale data set of student-drawn ‘literacy maps’ exploring who and what materials students had consulted to produce a final lecture-related report. Findings revealed increased awareness of the importance of portfolio and self-study and even their cross-fertilization over to other classes across the language and content curricula; however, some reticence was evident regarding self-scoring in self-study mode, showing that the transition from traditional teacher-centredness at high school had not yet been overcome. Also, of importance was the initially extensive use of self-access center advisors which, when withdrawn, may have negatively impacted students’ literacy networks. Implications to be drawn from this study lie primarily in the expanded use of portfolios and increased awareness-raising of student networks as important means towards the development of autonomous study skills and literacy. Questions do, however, remain as to the extent that this approach actually mirrors English-medium instruction in content classes at the university.
Adamson, J. L. & Coulson, D. (forthcoming). Pathways towards success for novice academic writers in a CLIL setting. In Al-Mahrooqi, R., Roscoe, A. & Thakur, V. S. (Eds.) Teaching Writing in EFL/ESL: A Fresh Look. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London: Longman.
Benson, P., Chik, A. & Lim, H. (2003). Becoming autonomous in an Asian context: Autonomy as a sociocultural process. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives. (pp. 23–40), New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Belcher, D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 , 1-22.
Biggs, J. (1994). What are effective schools? Lessons from East and West. Australian Educational Researcher,21(1),19-59.
Bonnet, A. (2012). Towards an Evidence base for CLIL. How to Integrate Qualitative and Quantitative as well as Process, Product and Participant Perspectives in CLIL Research. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 66-78. Retrieved 28th August, 2013: http://www.icrj.eu/14/article7.html
Brown, P. S. (2013). Teaching a Medical English CLIL Course with Vocabulary Learning Strategies Instruction in Japan. Asian EFL Journal 15(4), 275-304. Retrieved 26th February, 2014:
Chen, Y-M. (2006). EFL ınstruction and assessment with portfolios: A case study in Taiwan. Asian EFL Journal,8(1), 69-96. Retrieved 4th March, 2014:
Clegg, J. (2003). The Lingue E Scienze Project: Some Outcomes. L’uso veicolare della lingua staniera in appredimenti non linguistic. Centro Comunitare Quaderni 6, pp. 88-107.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. LosAngeles: Sage
Edsall, D. & Saito, Y. (2012). The Motivational benefits of Content. On Cue Journal, 6(2), 66-94.
Ikeda, M. (2012). CLIL no genri to shidouhou [The teaching principles of CLIL]. In Watanabe, Y., Ikeda, M., & Izumi, S. (Eds.) CLIL: New challenges in foreign language education. Volume 2, (pp. 1-15). Tokyo: Sophia University Press.
Holliday, A. (2003) Social autonomy: Addressing the dangers of culturism in TESOL. In D. Palfreyman and R.C. Smith (Eds.) Learner Autonomy Across Cultures: Language Education Perspectives. (pp. 110-126). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kubota, R. (2002). The author responds: (Un) Raveling racism in a nice field like TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1),84-92.
Lamsfuß-Schenk, S. (2002). Geschichte und Sprache: Ist der bilinguale Geschichtsunterricht der Königsweg zum Geschichtsbewusstsein? In Breidbach, S., Bach, G. & Wolff, D. (Eds.). Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht: Didaktik, Lehrer-Lernerforschung und Bildungspolitik zwischen Theorie und Empirie. (pp. 191-206), Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3-18.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 157–172.
Leander, K., & Lovvorn, J. (2006). Literacy networks: Following the circulation of texts, bodies, and objects in the schooling and online gaming of one youth. Cognition & Instruction, 24(3), 291–340.
Lillis, T. (2013).The Sociolinguistics of Writing. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Lillis, T. & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic Writing in a Global Context. London and New York: Routledge.
Little, D. (2000). We’re all in it together: Exploring the interdependence of teacher and learner autonomy. Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference and Workshop on Autonomous Language Learning, Helsinki, September 7th, 2000. Retrieved 14th August, 2009: http://www.iatefl.org.pl/sig/al/all.html
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics 20(1), 71-94.
Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal 54(1), 31-36.
Lucietto, S. (2008). A Model for Quality CLIL Provision. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 83-92. Retrieved 17th February, 2010: http:/www.icrj.eu/index?vol=11&page=746
Met, M. (2009). Content-Based Instruction: Defining Terms, Making Decisions. NFLC Reports. Retrieved 3rd March, 2010: http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/principles/decisions.html
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (n.d.) Project
for Promotion of Global Human Resource Development. Retrieved October 2nd , 2012:
Miichi, K. (2010). More colleges offer courses taught in English. The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved October 25th , 2010: http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201007160463.html
Mozzon-McPherson, M. (2001). Language advising: Towards a new discursive world. In Mozzon-McPherson, M. & Vismans, R. (Eds.). Beyond Language Teaching towards Language Advising. (pp. 7- 22). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Okano, K., & Tsuchiya, M. (1999). Education in contemporary Japan: Inequality and diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ottewill, R. & Drew, F. (2003). It’s good to talk: Reflections on the Relationship between Language and Non-language Learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(2), 181-192.
Paulson, F. L., Paulson, P. R., & Meyer, C. A. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio? Educational Leadership, 48(5), 60-63.
Pinner, R. (2013). Authenticity and CLIL: Examining authenticity from an international CLIL perspective. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 44-54. Retrived 26th February, 2014 from: http://www.icrj.eu/21/article4.html
Poisel, E. (2008). Assessment modes in CLIL to enhance language proficiency and
interpersonal skills. VIEWZ: Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 43-46.
Reutten, M. K. (1994). Evaluating ESL students’ performance on proficiency exams. Journal of Second Language Writing,3, 85-96.
Sinclair, B. (1997). Learner autonomy: The cross-cultural question. IATEFL Newsletter , October-November, 139, 12-13.
Wellman, B. & Berkowitz, S.D. (1988). Social structures: a network approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. (2012). Academic Literacies: Providing a space for the socio-pragmatic dynamics of EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 17-25.
Wolff, D. (2007). What is CLIL? CLIL. Integriertes Fremdsprachen -und Sachfach-Learnen. Retrieved 3rd March, 2010:
How to Cite
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).