CLIL in Pharmacology: Enabling Student Voice

Serafina Filice

doi:10.5294/laclil.2020.13.2.7

Autores/as

Serafina Filice Autor/a Università della Calabria https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2570-3354

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2020.13.2.7

Palabras clave:

AICLE parcial, AICLE modular, voz de estudiante, internacionalización, modalidad de conferencia.

Resumen

En las últimas décadas, la integración del contenido y el lenguaje en la educación ha ido ganando terreno en diferentes formatos didácticos y a varios niveles de educación en todo el mundo. Este estudio describe un proyecto piloto realizado en la Facultad de Farmacia de una universidad italiana, utilizando un formato de Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lenguas Extranjeras (AICLE) parcial, el único modelo aceptado por la Facultad para la experimentación. Los términos AICLE parcial y AICLE modular adjunto, describen diferentes grados de integración. Dado que se trataba de un primer ensayo con estudiantes de farmacia, la preocupación principal era descubrir cómo responderían a un enfoque tan “innovador”. A pesar de la gran cantidad de literatura disponible sobre AICLE en educación superior, existe una falta de investigación respecto de las opiniones de los estudiantes sobre el tema. Es como no tener en consideración a los principales protagonistas que se someten a este enfoque “innovador”. Por lo tanto, el objetivo fue investigar sobre las mencionadas opiniones, sobre sus experiencias, pensamientos y sentimientos. Las percepciones de los estudiantes son esenciales para futuras aplicaciones didácticas. Para la recopilación de los datos, se empleó un método mixto con el fin de proporcionarles mayor validez (observación directa y entrevista a grupos focales con sucesivo cuestionario de encuesta). Los resultados preliminares obtenidos del análisis cualitativo y cuantitativo contribuyen positivamente a la organización de los cursos AICLE en la educación superior. Los mismos revelan, en general, opiniones positivas, pero al mismo tiempo estimulan reflexiones en los maestros y en las partes interesadas sobre cómo preparar a los estudiantes para las lecciones de CLIL y sobre la estructuración de los programas de CLIL para implementaciones futuras.

To reference this article (APA) / Para citar este artículo (APA) / Para citar este artigo (APA)

Filice, S. (2020). CLIL in pharmacology: Enabling student voice. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 13(2), 313-338. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2020.13.2.7

Received: 24/04/2020

Accepted: 10/08/2020

Published: 13/01/2020

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Serafina Filice, Università della Calabria

Assistant Professor in English Language and Translation

Department of Languages and Educational Sciences,

University of Calabria; Italy

Citas

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/

+Proceedings.pdf

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.