Strengthening integrated learning: Towards a new era for pluriliteracies and intercultural learning

Do Coyle

doi:10.5294/5915

Autores/as

Do Coyle Autor/a University of Aberdeen

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5294/5915

Palabras clave:

AICLE impulsado por lenguaje, transposición didáctica, planes de lecciones, habilidades lingüísticas, la formación del profesorado de idiomas

Resumen

La expansión de Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lenguas Extranjeras (AICLE) en una escala global ha traído delanteros los desafíos de como los enfoques alternativos y más integrales podrían transformar las aulas en entornos transculturales ricos en lenguaje. Los enfoques integrados pueden ofrecer los alumnos oportunidades para participar en la creación de la significancia y la progresión de la lengua por medio de actividades secuenciadas cognitivamente desafiantes y culturalmente empotrados, como se refleja en el Marco de los 4C (Contenido, Cognición, Comunicación y Cultura). Estos enfatizan lenguaje del aula, así como las necesidades de los alumnos para acceder a la variedad de lenguaje que les ayuda a aprender un idioma adicional con eficacia, como se representa en el Tríptico de Lenguaje. Sin embargo, está bien documentado que las variables contextuales complejas hacen difícil realizar el potencial de AICLE. Investigaciones recientes realizadas por el Grupo de Graz en la manera de integrar mejor los componentes de las 4Cs ha llevado al desarrollo del Marco de Pluriliteracidades, en el que la conceptualización y la comunicación se unen y se anima a los alumnos a lenguar (o articular) su aprendizaje en sus propias palabras. Esto exige nuevas formas de actividades de conceptualización, planificación, y secuenciación que soportan los alumnos en el acceso a nuevos conocimientos mientras que desarrollan existentes y nuevas habilidades lingüísticas deben ser compartidos y comprendidos por los maestros. El modelo del Pluriliteracidades está evolucionando, y hay una clara necesidad de seguir trabajando

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Do Coyle, University of Aberdeen

Do Coyle is Head of School of Education and professor in Learning Innovation at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. Formerly at Nottingham University, she led an initial teacher education programme for future CLIL teachers, a Master’s programme for CLIL and supervised doctoral students in the field. Do is internationally renowned for her work in CLIL pedagogies and acts as advisor and consultant to ministries and organisations on a global scale. She is involved in a wide range of European initiatives and has published extensively in the field, including the national guidelines for CLIL. Her main research interests lie in furthering classroom pedagogies and professional learning rooted in teacher-learner class-based inquiry. Do’s current research involves teacher-learner networks for analysing effective CLIL practice using digital tools and virtual spaces. She is also carrying out collaborative research with colleagues in Austria and Australia to investigate pluriliteracies in CLIL settings and has launched an on-line Masters in Plurilingual Education.

Citas

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.

Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1992). Bilingual education. In J. M. Lynch, C. Modgil, & Sohan Modgil (Eds.), Cultural diversity and the schools: Vol. 1. Education for cultural diversity: Convergence and divergence (pp. 273–283). London, England: Falmer Press.

Bernaus, M., Andrade, A. I., Kervran, M., Murkowska, A., & Sáez, F.T. (2007). Plurilingual and pluricultural awareness in language teacher education: A training kit. Retrieved from the Council of Europe, European Centre for Modern Languages website: http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/publications/B2_LEA_E_internet.pdf

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. London, England: Longmans.

Bonnet, A. (2012). Language, content and interaction: How to make CLIL classrooms work. In D. Marsh & O. Meyer (Eds.). Quality interfaces: Examining evidence and exploring solutions in CLIL (pp. 175–190). Eichstätt, Germany: Eichstaett Academic Press.

Bruner, J. (1982). The language of education. Social Research, 49(4), 835–853.

Crane, C. (2002, November 23). Genre analysis: A step toward understanding the different stages of advanced language instruction. Paper presented at the ACTFL/AATG conference, Salt Lake City, UT. Retrieved from http://data.georgetown.edu/departments/german/programs/curriculum/manuscripts/cranegenre.html

Council of Europe (2010). The languages of schooling. Retrieved from the Council of Europe website: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Schoollang_EN.asp

Coyle, D. (2002). From little acorns. In D. So & G. Jones (Eds.), Education and society in plurilingual contexts (37–55). Brussels, Belgium: Brussels University Press.

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0

Coyle, D. (2009, February 27). CLIL for the new curriculum. Paper presented at CLIL conference, Willink Specialist Language College, Reading, UK.

Coyle, D. (2010). Language pedagogies revisited: Alternative approaches for integrating language learning, language using and intercultural understanding. In J. Miller, A. Kostogriz, & M. Gearon (Eds). Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: New Dilemmas for teachers (pp. 172–195). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Coyle, D. (2011). Investigating student gains: Content and language integrated learning. (ITALIC Research Report 09-0670). Retrieved from the University of Aberdeen, ITALIC website: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/italic/documents/ITALIC_Report_-_Complete_Version.pdf

Coyle, D., & Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2007). Research on content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 541–542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050708668197

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Dahllöf, U. (1991). Towards a new model for the evaluation of teaching. In U. Dahllöf, J. Harris, M. Shattock, A. Staropoli, & R. Veld (Eds.), Dimensions of Evaluation (pp. 116–152). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Eagleton, T. (2000). The idea of culture. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Retrieved from the Istituto Nazionale di Documentazione, Innovazione e Ricerca Educativa website: http://www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/eurydice/CLIL_EN.pdf

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London, England: Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/3897.Rich_Seam_web.pdf

Gee, J. P. (1989). What is literacy? Journal of Education, 171(1), pp. 18–25.

The Graz Group. (2014). Literacies through content and language integrated learning: Effective learning across subjects and languages. Retrieved from the Council of Europe, European Centre for Modern Languages website: http://www.ecml.at/F7/tabid/969/language/en-GB/Default.aspx

Halliday, M. A. K., & Mathiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional grammar. London, England: Arnold.

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. English Language Teaching Journal, 64(4), pp. 376–395.

Llinares, A., Morton, T., and Whittaker, R. (2010). The Roles of Languages in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE – The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential (European Commission Report, Public Services Contract DG EAC 36 01 Lot 3). Retrieved from the University of Jyväskylä, UniCOM Continuing Education Centre website: http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/pdf/doc491_en.pdf

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924

Orban, L. (2008, September 26). Address to the EU Language Strategy Conference, Paris, France.

Polias, J. (2007). Assessing learning: a language-based approach. In M. Olofsson (Ed.), Symposium 2006: Bedömning, flerspråkighet och lärande. Stockholm, Sweden: HLS förlag: Nationellt centrum för SFI och svenska som andraspråk.

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2013). CLIL implementation: From policy-makers to individual initiatives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 231–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777383

Stigler, J.W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York, NY: Free Press.

Van Lier, L. (2008). Ecological-semiotic perspectives on educational linguistics. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 596–605). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean – scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161–195). London, England: Continuum.

Vollmer, H. J. (2008). Constructing tasks for content and language integrated learning and assessment. In J. Eckerth & S. Siekmann (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching: Theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 227–290). Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany:Peter Lang.

Wolfe, S., & Alexander, R. (2008). Argumentation and dialogic teaching: Alternative pedagogies for a changing world. Retrieved from the Beyond Current Horizons: Technology, Children, Schools, and Families website: http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/argumentation-and-dialogic-teaching-alternative-pedagogies-for-a-changing-world/