Training teachers for English Medium Instructionlessons from research on second language listening comprehension

  1. Martín del Pozo, María Ángeles
Revista:
Revista de lingüística y lenguas aplicadas

ISSN: 1886-2438

Año de publicación: 2017

Número: 12

Páginas: 55-63

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.4995/RLYLA.2017.6986 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista de lingüística y lenguas aplicadas

Resumen

CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) and EMI (English Medium Instruction) practices have outpaced theory and teacher training. There is a need to provide answers to some of the key issues such as the language requirements. This paper aims to show that knowledge from English for Specific Purposes and English for Academic Purposes, fields which have provided effective teaching practices and materials, could now be used in CLIL/EMI. The paper focuses on two of these. First, the issues related to second language academic listening comprehension and, secondly, the findings from research on it and their implications for student / lecturer training and materials design. These implications and suggestions are summarized. The paper concludes providing some language learning resources originally targeted to students but which could become tools for (self) training of those teachers who need to update their language skills for CLIL. 

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aguilar Pérez, M. & Rodriguez, R. (2012) Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish university. International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 15 (2), 183-197.
  • Anderson, A. and Lynch, T. (1988). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ball, P. and Lindsay, D. (2012). Language demands and support for English Medium Instruction in tertiary education. In. A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges (pp. 44–64). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Banegas, D. (2012). “CLIL Teacher Development: Challenges and Experiences”. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 5 (1), 46-56.
  • Bertaux, C.M. Coonan, M.J.Frigols-Martín, P. Mehisto (2010). The Clil teacher’s competences grid.
  • Bullock Report (1975). A language for Life. Department of Education and Science: London.
  • Chaudron, C. and Richards, J.C. 1986. “The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures”. Applied Linguistics, 7, 113-127.
  • Coyle, D., Hood, P., Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  • Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
  • Dafouz Milne, E. (2011). “English as the medium of instruction in Spanish contexts: A look at teacher discourse”. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J.M. and Gallardo del Puerto, F. (eds) Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts. Frankfurt: Peter Lang , 89-110.
  • Dafouz, E. And Núñez, B. (2010). “Metadiscursive devices in university lectures: A constrastive analysis of L1 and L2 performance”. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T and U. Smit (eds.), 213- 233.
  • Dafouz, E. and Núñez, B. (2009). “CLIL in higher education: devising a new learning landscape”. In Dafouz, E. Guerrini, M. (eds.). CLIL across Educational Levels. Madrid: Richmond Publishing, 101-112.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). “Content and language integrated learning: from practice to principles”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 182-204.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., and Smit, U. (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Dudley- Evans T. (1998). Introduction In Fortanet, Palmer, Posteguillo, (Eds.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes. Publicaciones de la Universidad Jaime I.
  • Eslami, Z. R and Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2007). “Discourse Markers in Academic Lectures”. Asian EFL Journal. 9 (1), 22-38.
  • Eurydice Network. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice.
  • Eurydice Network. (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice.
  • Fernández, R. & Halbach, A. (2011). Analysing the situation of teachers in the Madrid au-tonomous community bilingual project. In Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts, Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (eds.), 103‐127. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.
  • Flowerdew, J. (ed.). (1994). Academic listening: Research perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Flowerdew, J. and Tauroza, S. (1995). “The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 435-458.
  • Halbach, A. and Lázaro, A. (2015). La acreditación del nivel de lengua inglesa en las uni-versidades españolas: Actualización 2015. Recuperado de http://www.britishcouncil.es/ sites/britishcouncil.es/files/british-council-la-acreditacion-del-nivel-de-lengua-inglesa.pdf
  • Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse. English in a Global Context. London: Continuum
  • Junta de Andalucía (2008). Curriculum Integrado de las Lenguas. Sevilla. Consejería de Educación.
  • Lasagabaster, D. and Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (eds.) (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training, Cambridge Scholars Library: Newcastle.
  • Lee, J. (2009). Size matters: an exploratory comparison of small- and large-class university lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes 28, 42–57.
  • Littlemore J. (2001). “The use of metaphor in university lectures and the problems that it causes for overseas students”. Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 333- 349.
  • Llinares, A., T. Morton and. Whittaker, R. (2011). The Role of Language in CLIL. Cambridge: CUP.
  • Lynch, T. (1994). “Training lecturers for international audiences”. In J. Flowerdew. (Ed.). Academic listening: Research perspectives, Cambridge: CUP. 269-289.
  • Marsh, D. (compiler and author) (2002). CLIL/EMILE –The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. Jyväskylä: UniCOM, University of Jyväskylä. <http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/doc/david_marsh-report.pdf> 13 May 2012
  • Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., Frigols Martin, M. J. (2010). European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education: A framework for the professional development of CLIL teachers. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.
  • Martín del Pozo, M.A. (2014). Aproximación lingüístico didáctica al discurso académico de la clase magistral en la formación del profesorado en contextos universitarios bilingües. Tesis doctoral. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
  • Martín del Pozo, M.A. (2015). “Teacher education for content and language integrated learning: insights from a current European debate”. Revista electrónica interuniversitaria de formación del profesorado 18, 153-168.
  • Mendelssohn, D. (1998). Teaching Listening, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 81-101.
  • Miller, L. (2002). “Towards a Model for Lecturing in a Second Language”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 1. 145-162.
  • Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (2013). Degree Programs in English Language in the Spanish University System. MECD
  • Morell, T. (2004). “Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students”. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 325-338.
  • Morton, T. (2010). “Using a genre-based approach to integrating content and language in CLIL: The example of secondary history”. In Dalton-Puffer, C., T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.). 81–104.
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2014). Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-service teacher perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI: 0.1080/13670050.2014.980778
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016). Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European study. European Journal of Teacher Education. DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2016.1138104
  • Richards, J. 1983. "Listening Comprehension: Approach, Design, Procedure", TESOL Quarterly, 17 (2), 219-240.
  • Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching listening. Harlow: Longman.
  • Ruiz-Garrido, M. and Fortanet Gómez, I. (2009). “Needs analysis in a CLIL context: A Transfer from ESP”. In Marsh, D., P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. Frigols-Martin, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä, 178-189.
  • Smit, T. (2006). Listening comprehension in academic lectures: a focus on the role of discourse markers. MA Thesis. University of South Africa http://uir.unisa.ac.za/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10500/2357/dissertation.pdf?sequence=1. 13 May 2012.
  • Snow, M. A. (1998). Trends and issues in content-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 243-267.
  • Vandergrift, L. (2004). “Listening to learn or learning to listen?” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 3-25.
  • Young, L. (1994). “University lectures macro-structures and micro-features”. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), 159-179.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet