“I Wouldn’t Say There Is Anything Language Specific”: The Disconnect between Tertiary CLIL Teachers’ Understanding of the General Communicative and Pedagogical Functions of Language

Ulla Fürstenberg; Tom Morton; Petra Kletzenbauer; Margit Reitbauer

doi:10.5294/laclil.2021.14.2.5

Autores/as

Ulla Fürstenberg Autor/a University of Graz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5551-3204
Tom Morton Autor/a Universidad Autónoma de Madrid https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4255-2992
Petra Kletzenbauer Autor/a FH Joanneum University of Applied Sciences https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9999-8592
Margit Reitbauer Autor/a University of Graz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8173-0395

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2021.14.2.5

Palabras clave:

Educación superior, formación docente, idioma de instrucción, discusiones, preguntas

Resumen

Los profesores de AICLE, particularmente en entornos AICLE terciarios “difíciles”, tienden a subestimar el papel del lenguaje en el desarrollo de la comprensión conceptual de nuevos contenidos. Sin embargo, constantemente se relacionan con el inglés fuera del aula e incluso informan sobre una variedad de actividades que realizan en inglés con la esperanza explícita de que esto mejore sus habilidades lingüísticas. No obstante, no parecen desarrollar estrategias de transferencia que les permitan beneficiarse de este compromiso con la lengua en su enseñanza. Los resultados de un estudio a nivel nacional sobre el bienestar de los docentes AICLE en Austria confirmaron esta desconexión, lo que impulsó nuestro presente estudio de seguimiento, que busca combinar la formación docente y la investigación y elevar los niveles de Conciencia Lingüística Docente (TLA) de los docentes AICLE de nivel terciario. A través de un cuestionario en línea, observaciones de clase y entrevistas de recuerdo estimulado, exploramos la conceptualización del idioma por parte de los maestros, más específicamente su conocimiento del idioma necesario para la enseñanza efectiva de contenido. Los resultados sugieren que el entrenamiento en TLA basado en la investigación debe ser parte de la formación del profesorado AICLE para resolver la desconexión entre las funciones comunicativas generales del lenguaje, por un lado, y las funciones pedagógicas del lenguaje, por el otro. Esto puede ayudar a que los profesores desbloqueen el potencial de su compromiso existente con la lengua para mejorar su discurso y prácticas en el aula.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Ulla Fürstenberg, University of Graz

Senior Lecturer

English Department

University of Graz

Tom Morton, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Tom Morton is Beatriz Galindo Distinguished Researcher in the Department of English Philology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain. His research interests include CLIL, EMI and language teacher knowledge and identity.

Petra Kletzenbauer, FH Joanneum University of Applied Sciences

Petra Kletzenbauer is a university lecturer at the FH Joanneum, Austria. Her research interests include CLIL and English for Specific Purposes (ESP).

Margit Reitbauer, University of Graz

Margit Reitbauer is a university professor at the Department of English Studies, University of Graz, Austria. Her research interests include reading research, computer-mediated communication, discourse analysis, and cognitive linguistics.

Citas

Airey, J. (2012). I don’t teach language. The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(25), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.25.05air

Airey, J., Lauridsen, K. M., Räsänen, A., Salö, L., & Schwach, V. (2017). The expansion of English-medium instruction in the Nordic countries: Can top-down university language policies encourage bottom-up disciplinary literacy goals? Higher Education, 73(4), 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9950-2

Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher language awareness. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497643

Andrews, S., & Lin, A. M. (2017). Language awareness and teacher development. In P. Garrett & J. Cots (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language awareness (pp. 57–74). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676494-4

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554

Banse, H. W., Palacios, N.A., Merritt, E. G., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2017). Scaffolding English language learners’ mathematical talk in the context of calendar math. Journal of Educational Research, 110(2),

–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1075187

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2014). Thematic analysis. Encyclopedia of critical psychology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_311

Cummins, J. (2013). BICS and CALP: Empirical support, theoretical status, and policy implications of a controversial distinction. In M. Hawkins (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies: Socially situated views and perspectives (pp. 10–23). Routledge.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.20

Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (Vol. 7). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7

Escobar-Urmeneta, C., & Walsh, S. (2017). Classroom interactional competence in content and language integrated learning. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Ed.), Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL (pp. 183–200). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.11esc

Gabillon, Z., & Ailincai, R. (2015). Content and language integrated learning: In search of a coherent conceptual framework [Conference paper]. The European Conference on Language Learning (ECLL), Brighton, UK. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4027.6963

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Routledge.

Hartas, D. (Ed.). (2010). Educational research and inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Bloomsbury Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474243834

He, P., & Lin, A. M. (2018). Becoming a “language-aware” content teacher. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6(2), 162–188. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17009.he

Hessel, G., Talbot, K. R., Gruber, M. T., & Mercer, S. (2020). The well-being and job satisfaction of secondary CLIL and tertiary EMI teachers in Austria. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning, 2(2), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.52598/jpll/2/2/6

Komorowska, H. (2014). Language awareness: From embarras de richesses to terminological confusion. In A. Łyda & K. Szczesniak (Eds.), Awareness in action (pp. 3–20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00461-7_1

Lin, A. M. (2016). Language across the curriculum & CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1802-2

Lindahl, K. M. (2016). Teacher language awareness among pre-service K-12 educators of English language learners. In J. A. Crandall & M. A. Christison (Eds.), Teacher education and professional development in TESOL: Global perspectives (pp. 127–140). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315641263-8

Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350

Mahan, K.R. (2020). The comprehending teacher: Scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). The Language Learning Journal, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1705879

Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2017). Reflective practice in English language teaching: Research-based principles and practices. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315733395

Marsh, D., Frigols, M., Mehisto, P., & Wolff, D. (2011). The European framework for CLIL teacher education. Council of Europe, ECML.

McNeil, L. (2011). Using talk to scaffold referential questions for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 396–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.005

Mehisto, P. (2011). Navigating management and pedagogical complexities in bilingual education: An Estonian case study [Doctoral Dissertation, Institute of Education, University of London].

Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.

Moate, J. M. (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense of professional integrity in the CLIL classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.585023

Morton, T. (2012). Classroom tal, conceptual change and teacher reflection in bilingual science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(1) 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.006

Morton, T. (2018). Reconceptualizing and describing teachers’ knowledge of language for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1383352

Morton, T. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions: A bridge between content, literacy and language for teaching and assessment in CLIL. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 3(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.33

Nikula, T., & Dafouz, E. (Eds.). (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (Vol. 101). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145

O’Dowd, R. (2018). The training and accreditation of teachers for English medium instruction: An overview of practice in European universities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 553–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1491945

Papaja, K. (2013). The role of a teacher in a CLIL classroom. Glottodidactica: An International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 40(1), 147–153. https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2013.40.1.11

Reitbauer, M., Fürstenberg, U., Kletzenbauer, P., & Marko, K. (2018). Towards a cognitive-linguistic turn in CLIL: Unfolding integration. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 11(1), 87–107. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2018.11.1.5

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.04.007

Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446268322

Smit, U., & Dafouz-Milne, E. (2012). Integrating content and language in higher education: An introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research practices across Europe. AILA Review. 25. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.25.01smi

Unterberger, B. (2014). English-medium degree programmes in Austrian tertiary business studies: Policies and programme design [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Vienna, Austria.

van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical approach to modelling cognitive processes. Academic Press.

Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203827826