Evaluating Contextualized Content and Language Integrated Learning Materials at Tertiary Level
Keywords:Textbook production, evaluation criteria, evaluation methods, bilingual education, tertiary education, higher education, Taiwan
Evaluación de materiales de aprendizaje integrado de contenidos y lenguas extranjeras contextualizados a nivel de educación superior
Avaliação de materiais de aprendizagem integrada de conteúdos e línguas estrangeiras contextualizados a nível de ensino superior
The Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach has been broadly adopted and extensively researched at different educational levels across European contexts. It is also becoming popular in Asian settings due to its dual focus on developing both language skills and content knowledge. It aims to empower learners with high mobility and employability in the globalized job market. However, successful implementation of CLIL in these countries has been difficult for various reasons, including lack of suitable CLIL-based curricular materials. This study reports how an English for Specific Purposes (ESP) teacher, who is also a CLIL practitioner, worked collaboratively with an English learner who has professional, industrial internship experience, to produce contextualized CLIL learning materials for tertiary education. It also examines to what extent the self-designed CLIL materials satisfy standards of good quality. In total, 47 English-major first-year students joined the study in a national polytechnic university in Taiwan. The results reveal that CLIL learners have a fairly high expectation of quality materials, and our design received 5%–25% lower agreement than the criteria. Moreover, learners’ gender, language proficiency and previous secondary school major were factors that affected how they perceive the criteria of quality and our own CLIL materials. This demonstrates complexities of designing CLIL-based curricular materials addressing learners’ individual differences (especially in terms of needs and expectations) in a polytechnic university with pedagogic implications.
To reference this article (APA) / Para citar este artículo (APA) / Para citar este artigo (APA)
Yang, W. (2018). Evaluating Contextualized Content and Language Integrated Learning Materials at Tertiary Level. LACLIL, 11(2), 236-274. DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2018.11.2.4
Arnó-Macià, E., & Mancho-Barés, G. (2015). The role of content and language in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at university: Challenges and implications for ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 63-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.007
Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 118-136. DOI: 10.1177/1362168813505381
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Banegas, D. L. (2011). Content and language integrated learning in Argentina 2008-2011. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 33–50. Retrieved from http://laclil.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/LACLIL/article/view/2634
Banegas, D. L. (2014). An investigation into CLIL-related sections of EFL coursebooks: Issues of CLIL inclusion in the publishing market. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(3), 345–359. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2013.793651
Banegas, D. L. (2015). Sharing views of CLIL lesson planning in language teacher education. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 104–130. DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2015.8.2.3
Bell, J., & Gower, R. (2011). Writing course materials for the world: A great compromise. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp. 135–150). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course: CLIL module. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Breidbach, S., & Viebrock, B. (2012). CLIL in Germany: Results from recent research in a contested field of education. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 5–16. Retrieved from http://www.icrj.eu/14/article1.html
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39(4), 523–532. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why… and why not. System, 41(3), 587–597. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001
Clapper, T. C. (2010). Creating the safe learning environment. Pailal Newsletter, 3(2), 1–6. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257835881_Creating_the_safe_learning_environment
Cañado, M. L. P. (2018). CLIL and educational level: A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on language outcomes. Porta Linguarum: Revista Internacional de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras, 29, 51–70. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/6273210.pdf
Chien, C. W. (2017). CLIL lesson planning and material development in an English wonderland. English as a Global Language Education (EaGLE) Journal, 3(2), 45–82. DOI: 10.6294/EaGLE.201712_3(2).0003
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. DOI: 10.2167/beb459.0
Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL: A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1200 – 1214). Springer, Boston, MA. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_92
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cotterall, S. (2000). Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: Principles for designing language courses. ELT Journal, 54(2), 109–117. DOI: 10.1093/elt/54.2.109
Cummins, J. (1992). Language proficiency, bilingualism, and academic achievement. In P. A. Richard Amato, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for content-area teachers (pp. 16–26). New York, NY: Longman.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms (Vol. 20). Amsterdam, The Netherlands John Benjamins Publishing. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.20
Diab, R. (2000). Political and socio-cultural factors in foreign language education: The case of Lebanon. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 5(1), 177–187. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED468315.pdf
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). A principled approach to content-based materials development for reading. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English language teaching materials. Theory and practice (pp. 131–156). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fernández, D. J. (2009). CLIL at the university level: Relating language teaching with and through content teaching. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 2(2), 10–26. Retrieved from http://laclil.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/LACLIL/article/view/2602
Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2017). Analyzing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programs: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1 – 14. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142
Floimayr, T. (2010). CLIL in Biology: An evaluation of existing teaching materials for Austrian schools. VIEWS: Vienna English Working Papers, (19)3, 21–28. Retrieved from https://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/i_anglistik/Department/Views/Uploads/Views_0703_specissue.pdf
Fortune, T. (2000). Immersion teaching strategies observation checklist. The Bridge: From Research to Practice, 3, 1–4. Retrieved from http://dlinspps.pbworks.com/f/Immersion+Teaching+Strategies+Observation+Checklist.pdf
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitude and motivation. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Goldenberg, C. (2008) Teaching English language learners: What the research does — and does not — say. American Educator, 32(2), 8–23. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=esed5234-master
Ikeda, M. (2013). Does CLIL work for Japanese secondary school students. Potential for the weak version of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 31–41. Retrieved from http://www.icrj.eu/21/article3.html
Ioannou Georgiou, S. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal, 66(4), 495–504. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccs047
Jakonen, T., & Morton, T. (2013). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 73–94. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amt031
Lagabaster, D. (2018, May). Team teaching: A way to boost the quality of EMI programmes? Plenary speech delivered at the International Conference on Quality of Bilingual Programs in Higher Education, Universidad de Huelva, Spain.
Lin, A. M. (2016). Language across the curriculum & CLIL in English as an additional language. (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Singapore: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-1802-2
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175–181. DOI: 10.1016/0346-251X(95)00006-6
Lo, Y. Y. (2015). A glimpse into the effectiveness of L2-content cross-curricular collaboration in content-based instruction programs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 443–462. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2014.916654
Lo, Y. Y., & Lin, A. M. (2015). Special issue: Designing multilingual and multimodal CLIL frameworks for EFL students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 261–269. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2014.988111
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching language through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.18
Marsh, D. (2000). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved from http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/clilmatrix/pdf/1uk.pdf
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols Martin, M. J. (2012). European framework for CLIL teacher education. Retrieved from https://ebuah.uah.es/dspace/bitstream/handle/10017/14881/CLIL-Framework_Marsh.pdf?sequence=1
Massler, U. (2011). Assessment in CLIL learning. In S. Ioannou-Georgiou, & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education (pp. 114–136). Brussels, Belgium: European Committee.
McGrath, I. (2013). Teaching materials and the role of EFL/ESL teachers: Theory versus practice. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Mehisto, P. (2008). CLIL counterweights: Recognizing and decreasing disjuncture in. CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 93–119. Retrieved from http://www.icrj.eu/11/article8.html
Mehisto, P. (2012). Criteria for Producing CLIL Learning Material. Encuentro, 21, 15–33. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539729.pdf
Meyer, O. (2015). Towards quality CLIL: Successful planning and teaching strategies. PULSO Revista de Educación, 33, 11–29. Retrieved from https://revistas.cardenalcisneros.es/index.php/PULSO/article/view/92/68
Morton, T. (2013). Critically evaluating materials for CLIL: Practitioners’ practices and perspectives. In J. Gray (Ed.), Critical perspectives on language teaching materials (pp. 111–136). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9781137384263_6
Moore, P., & Lorenzo, F. (2007). Adapting authentic materials for CLIL classrooms: An empirical study. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 28–35. Retrieved from https://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/i_anglistik/Department/Views/Uploads/Views_0703_specissue.pdf
Navarro-Pablo, M., & Jiménez, E. G. (2018). Are CLIL students more motivated? An analysis of affective factors and their relation to language attainment. Porta Linguarum: Revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, 29, 71–90. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/6273211.pdf
Nikula, T. (2012). On the role of peer discussions in the learning of subject-speciﬁc language use in CLIL. In E. Soler, & M. Safont-Jordà (Eds.), Discourse and language learning across L2 instructional settings (pp. 133–153). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi. Retrieved from https://reurl.cc/lZ4a9
OEASOL (Office of English as the Second Official Language). (2018). Results of bilingual education in local schools in Tainan garnered attention at the 11th English as a Lingua Franca Conference. Retrieved from http://oeasol.tainan.gov.tw/index.php?inter=news&id=155
Pavón-Vázquez, V., Ávila-López, J., Gallego-Segador, A., & Espejo-Mohedano, R. (2015) Strategic and organizational considerations in planning content and language integrated learning: A study on the coordination between content and language teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 409–425. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2014.909774
Pinner, R. (2013). Authenticity of purpose: CLIL as a way to bring meaning and motivation into EFL contexts. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 138–159. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Pinner/publication/281832611_Authenticity_of_Purpose_CLIL_as_a_way_to_bring_meaning_and_motivation_into_EFL_contexts/links/55fa48fc08aec948c4a357db.pdf
Prochazkova, L. T. (2013). Mathematics for language, language for mathematics. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 23–28. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1108199.pdf
Riddlebarger, J. (2013). Doing CLIL in Abu Dhabi. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 413–421. Retrieved from http://asian-efl-journal.com/wp-content/uploads/Vol-15-Issue-4-December-2013-Special-Edition-45155200a.pdf#page=414
Roussel, S., Joulia, D., Tricot, A., & Sweller, J. (2017). Learning subject content through a foreign language should not ignore human cognitive architecture: A cognitive load theory approach. Learning and Instruction, 52, 69–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.04.007
Ruiz-Garrido, M., & Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2009). Needs analysis in a CLIL context: A transfer from ESP. In D. March & P. Mehisto (Eds.), CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 179–188). Retrieved from https://reurl.cc/EXLQ0
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). CLIL learning: Achievement levels and affective factors. Language and Education, 21(4), 328–341. DOI: 10.2167/le635.0
Sheldon, L. E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(4), 237–246. DOI: 10.1093/elt/42.4.237
Sudhoff, J. (2010). CLIL and intercultural communicative competence: Foundations and approaches towards a fusion. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 30–37. Retrieved from http://www.icrj.eu/13/article3.html
Taillefer, G. (2013). CLIL in higher education: the (perfect?) crossroads of ESP and didactic reflection. ASp. la revue du GERAS, 63, 31–53. DOI: 10.4000/asp.3290
Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143–179. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444811000528
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language learning: Theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180. DOI: 10.1080/13670050608668639
Yang, W. (2015). Content and language integrated learning next in Asia: Evidence of learners’ achievement in CLIL education from a Taiwan tertiary degree programme. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 361–382. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2014.904840
Yang, W. (2016). ESP vs. CLIL: A coin of two sides or a continuum of two extremes. ESP today, 4(1), 43–68. Retrieved from https://www.esptodayjournal.org/pdf/current_issue/3.6.2016/WENHSIEN-YANG-full%20text.pdf
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).