Evaluation of the Implementation of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) Methodology in theDidactics of the English Language in Preschool
EducationCourse Taught in the Preschool Education Teacher
Undergraduate Program at the University of Alicante
Myriam Cherro Samper
Evaluation of the Implementation of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) Methodology in the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education Course Taught in the Preschool Evaluation of the Implementation of CLIL (Content Education Teacher Undergraduate Program at the and Language Integrated Learning) Methodology in University of Alicante the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education Course Taught in the Preschool Education Teacher Undergraduate Program at the University of Alicante
Doctoral Thesis presented to the Innovation and Teacher Training Department of the University of Alicante School of Education Doctoral ThesisPresented presented by: to the Innovation and Teacher Training Department of the Myriam Cherro Samper University of Alicante School of Education PresentedDirected by by:
Dr.Myriam Antonio Cherro Díez MediavillaSamper
Directed by Alicante, 2015 Dr. Antonio Díez Mediavilla
1
Alicante, 2015
1
1
2
Appreciation:
3
4
I wish to thank, first and foremost, my Professor Antonio Díez Mediavilla who has directed me, helped me and advised me throughout this lengthy study. I would like to thank him not only for his help, but also for believing in me even on those occasions when I did not believe in myself because his attitude and trust in me gave me the strength to persevere and carry on to the end.
This thesis is dedicated to my family, as they have been the stakeholders I have needed for this thesis to not remain a dream, but instead to become my dream come true. I would like to thank my parents who have given me the opportunity of receiving an education from the best institutions and have given me their unconditional support throughout my life, my husband and daughter who have always supported me and never stopped smiling even when they suffered the lack of family time we have had since I started this research project, and finally, my aunts who have always been there for me offering their help in any way so that I could find the time to carry out and complete this thesis.
5
6
1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………… 15
1.1. Research Justification ………………………………………………... 19
1.2. Research Aim & Relevance ………………………………………..... 29
1.3. Description of Communicative Language Teaching ……………..... 45
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ……………………………………………... 49
2.1. CLIL Approach ………………………………………………………… 51
2.1.1. CLIL Origins: Mohan’s Knowledge Framework ……………… 52
2.1.2. What is CLIL? ...... 58
2.1.3. Special Educational Needs Students & CLIL ………………… 67
2.1.4. Applying CLIL in Class ………………………………………..... 71
2.1.5. The CLIL Teacher ……………………………………………..... 83
2.1.6. CLIL in Spain …………………………………………………….. 92
2.1.7. CLIL in Higher Education ………………………………………. 99
2.2. Problem Proposal ……………………………………………...... 105
3. OBJECTIVES ……………………………………………...... 119
3.1. Objectives ……………………………………………...... 121
3.2. Hypothesis ……………………………………………...... 125
4. METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………...... 129
4.1. Participants and Context ……………………………………………... 131
4.2. Treatment ……………………………………………...... 134
7 7 4.3. Research tools ………………………………………………………… 160
4.3.1. Pre-Test & Post-Test: DIALANG Test …………………………… 161
4.3.1.1. What is DIALANG? …………………………………………… 168
4.3.1.2. Description of DIALANG System parts ……………………… 173
A. Chosen language to be tested ………………………………… 175
B. Placement Test & Feedback …………………………………… 175
C. Language Skills Tests & Language Self-Assessment ………. 177 a) Listening ……………………………………………………… 181 b) Writing ………………………………………………………... 193 c) Reading ………………………………………………………. 197 d) Vocabulary …………………………………………………… 200 e) Structures ……………………………………………………. 202 4.3.2. Questionnaire ………………………………………………………. 206
4.3.3. Students’ Assessment ……………………………………….……. 212
4.4. Analysis ………………………………………………………………… 215
5. RESULTS ……………………………………………………………………… 217
5.1. DIALANG Test ………………………………………………………… 219
5.2. Questionnaire …………………………………………………………. 233
5.3. Students’ Assessment ……………………………………………… 257
6. DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………… 267
7. CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………………………………… 291
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL …………………………. 299
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………... 333
10. ANNEX ………………………………………………………………………... 351
8
THESIS CHARTS INDEX
Chart 1. Course tasks & cognitive processes involved …………………………… 149
Chart 2. Pre-test & post-test comparative results …………………………………. 231
Chart 3. Languages and English language ………………………………………... 234
Chart 4. Students’ perceived oral and written English level according to the questionnaire ………………………………………………………………... 241
Chart 5. Students’ perception of oral English level and real level comparison … 244
Chart 6. Students’ perception of written English level and real level comparison ………………………………………………………………….. 245
Chart 7. English courses …………………………………………………………….. 247
Chart 8. Difficulty in following the course in English ……………………………… 255
Chart 9. Descriptive statistics of course final grades ……………………………... 257
Chart 10. Descriptive statistics of course grades …………………………………. 259
Chart 11. Pearson’s correlation of course grade ………………………………….. 264
Chart 12. Regression estimates …………………………………………………….. 265
9 9
10
THESIS FIGURES INDEX
Figure 1. English teaching methods & approaches timeline …………………….. 30
Figure 2. Research development ……………………..……………………………. 44
Figure 3. Content and Language Integrated Learning …………………………… 59
Figure 4. Approaches similar to CLIL collection …………………………………... 65
Figure 5.CLIL Suitability for SEN students ……………………..………………….. 70
Figure 6. Pinkley CLIL 5 Dimensions ……………………..………………………... 75
Figure 7. Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course contents ……………………………………..………………………………. 78 Figure 8. Dale & Tanner (2012) CLIL learners’ benefits ……………...... … 82
Figure 9. ”The Language Triptych” (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010, p. 36) ……… 84
Figure 10. Coyle, Hood & Marsh (2010) 6 Steps classroom CLIL implementation plan ……………………..………………………………. 87 Figure 11. CLIL schools in Spain. Lasagabaster (2010) …………………………. 96
Figure 12. Current study main aim & specific objectives ………………………… 124
Figure 13. Study Hypothesis on CLIL implementation results ………………….. 127
Figure 14. Percentage of the population according to age ……………………… 132
Figure 15. Course Dossier Outline …………………………………………………. 138
Figure 16. Course Online Dictionaries List ………………………………………… 145
Figure 17. Course Online Grammar Web Pages List ……………………………. 145
Figure 18. Course Internet Links List ………………………………………………. 146
Figure 19. Course ESC Cultural Aspects ………………………………………….. 154
11 11
Figure 20. Didactic Unit Themes ……………………………………………………. 156
Figure 21. Didactic Unit Themes Categories ……………………………………… 157
Figure 22. Application of Coyle’s 4Cs in the course ……………………………… 159
Figure 23. Screenshot of Placement Test …………………………………………. 176
Figure 24. Screenshot of Placement test feedback ………………………………. 177
Figure 25. Screenshot of language skills tests ……………………………………. 178
Figure 26. Screenshot of Self-assessment listening test ………………………… 179
Figure 27. Screenshot of Listening Test item ……………………………………… 182
Figure 28. Screenshot of immediate feedback in Listening Test item ………….. 184
Figure 29. Screenshot of Listening Test final feedback comments …………….. 185
Figure 30. Screenshot of Listening Test results …………………………………... 186
Figure 31. Screenshot of Listening Test items revision results ………………….. 187
Figure 32. Screenshot of Listening Test results compared with the Listening Self-assessment results …………………………………………………. 189 Figure 33. Screenshot of comments to understand why the Listening Self- assessment results do not match the Listening Test results ……….. 190 Figure 34. Screenshot about Self-assessments …………………………………... 191
Figure 35. CEFRL program advice screenshot …………………………………… 192
Figure 36. Screenshot of Writing Test feedback ………………………………….. 195
Figure 37. Screenshot of Writing Test results …………………………………….. 196
Figure 38. Screenshot of CEFRL levels ……………………………………………. 197
Figure 39. Screenshot of Reading Test feedback ………………………………… 199
12 12
Figure 40. Screenshot of Vocabulary Test feedback …………………………….. 202
Figure 41. Screenshot of Grammar Test feedback ……………………………….. 205
Figure 42. Students’ pre-test and post-test Listening level ……………………… 221
Figure 43. Students’ pre-test and post-test Writing level ………………………… 222
Figure 44. Students’ pre-test and post-test Reading level ……………………….. 223
Figure 45. Students’ pre-test and post-test Vocabulary level ……………………. 225
Figure 46. Students’ pre-test and post-test Grammar Structures level ………… 226
Figure 47. Students’ pre-test and post-test level improvement …...... ……….. 230
Figure 48. Subjects’ age ……………………..……………………………………… 233
Figure 49. Languages studied ………………………………………………………. 235
Figure 50. Languages spoken ……………………..……………………………….. 236
Figure 51. Years studying English ………………………………………………….. 238
Figure 52. Frequency of watching programs, series and movies in English …… 239
Figure 53. Importance of communicating in English ……………………………… 240
Figure 54. Students’ perceived oral communication level in English …………… 242
Figure 55. Students’ perceived written level in English …………………………... 243
Figure 56. Courses taken in English ……………………………………………….. 248
Figure 57. Percentage of course attended ………………………………………… 248
Figure 58. Percentage of course taught in English ……………………………….. 249
Figure 59. Perceived improvement in English level ………………………………. 250
Figure 60. Perceived capability of teaching English before course …………… 252
13 13
Figure 61. Perceived capability of teaching English after course ……………… 254
Figure 62. Difficulty in following the course in English …………………………… 256
Figure 63. Box plot of course grades ……………………..………………………... 263
14 14 1. INTRODUCTION
16
1. INTRODUCTION
With the implementation of the Plans Lingüístics in the Valencian
Autonomous Community in 1990, certain subjects that comprise the basic curriculum in pre-compulsory, compulsory, and even higher education, have been taught in the students’ second language (either Spanish or Valencian) with the objective of helping students achieve not only linguistic competence, but ideally, bilingualism in both languages. Consequently, this type of immersion program is not new to educators and students in this geographic region. Nevertheless, even though teaching content subjects in second languages is a common practice in many countries and regions that have more than one official language, it is not a well-known practice among the general population. Instead, foreign languages have traditionally been taught as subjects in and of themselves, with the aim of having students first achieve linguistic competence, and ultimately, communicative competence.
Immersion programs were first implemented in Canadian schools back in the
1970s and ’80s in regions where two official languages (English and French) coexist. Based on his analysis of the Canadian experience with language immersion programs, contributions from foreign language teachers, and his own research, the Australian David Marsh developed the Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) methodology. This approach strives to make teaching and learning a foreign language at the same time as content from subject areas more effective.
17 17 1. INTRODUCTION
If we compare our own experience with teaching subject areas in second languages here in the Valencian Autonomous Community with the initial Canadian immersion programs, we may find some similarities but, what happens when we compare our traditional linguistic programs with CLIL? At first glance, they may seem the same. We may ask ourselves what is so valuable, original and novel in the CLIL approach. We may also ask ourselves if these programs are not just based on teaching subject areas in a language which is not the pupil’s mother tongue. However, if we take the time to thoroughly examine the principles of CLIL methodology, we find that the answer is no; CLIL is not the same as our Valencian
Immersion Programs, and in this paper we will find that CLIL methodology comprises much more than just teaching a subject area in a language that is not the pupil’s mother tongue. Furthermore, we will determine all the factors that are essential to ensuring the effective learning of a foreign language and content from subject areas at the same time; specifically, the competencies that CLIL teachers must have and develop and the competencies that CLIL lessons must contain.
This will be demonstrated through the theoretical framework, research, analysis and conclusions found in this study where CLIL has been used as the methodology applied during the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool
Education course taught in the School of Education at the University of Alicante, for students completing the Preschool Education Teacher Undergraduate Program.
18 18 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research Justification
In the search for the best way to teach a foreign language at each level of education, many teachers and professors continually innovate and test their methods while analyzing and researching the latest tendencies on how to help students learn a foreign language in the most effective way.
As described by Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols (2008):
By the mid-1990s globalization was placing greater linguistic demand on mainstream education, from the primary level through to institutions of higher education. In Europe today, there is a desire to improve language-learning opportunities for all young people in order to increase European cohesion and competitiveness (p.10).
In the words of Marsh and Frigols-Martín (n.d.):
The emergence of the information age has resulted in sweeping changes in how societies, and the educational systems that serve them, operate. In this new situation, creativity, intelligence, and connectivity have become key resources for success. This is placing new demands on educational systems resulting in the need for the creation of innovative working models. (...) Profound change is now affecting the significance and position of the teaching of English as a foreign language. Having increased its importance (...) in many societies, the ways and means by which English is taught and learnt has come under scrutiny (p.1).
19 19 1. INTRODUCTION
As these authors state, these changes taking place in the search for the best way to teach English can be explained by the following three main reasons:
1) there is now a greater need to develop English language competence
among the population than before,
2) the effectiveness of the ways in which people learn English has come
under scrutiny with respect to efficiency, and
3) the position of English is undergoing significant change in certain
societies.
Learning and knowing a foreign language has always been important, but nowadays it is more a necessity than an achievement. Since Spain became a member of the European Union, and especially now with the economic crisis we are experiencing, speaking a foreign language has become essential when trying to find a job, or when immigrating to another European country to find work. In addition to these factors, language learning in Spain has also been influenced by
European trends regarding building a unified Europe, globalization in Europe, and integration among all the European countries with the promotion of the European linguistic policy.
As Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols (2008) explain:
It is a student’s desire to understand and use the content that motivates him or her to learn the language. Even in language class, students are likely to learn
20 20 1. INTRODUCTION
more if they are not simply learning language for language’s sake, but using language to accomplish concrete tasks and learn new content (p. 11).
The European Union, acknowledging the extraordinary importance of learning a second and a third language, developed a European Education Policy in relation to languages in 1976.
In this paper, we will examine a collection of the most relevant agreements and resolutions related to language policy and the promotion of CLIL implementation reached by the Council of Europe over the past twenty years.
The Council and the Ministers of Education, who have dealt with the promotion of the teaching of the languages of the Union on many occasion given that the promotion of linguistic diversity is one of the major issues in education. For this reason, in the Council Resolution of 31 March 1995 on improving and diversifying language learning and teaching within the education systems of the European
Union, they emphasized the need:
- to promote qualitative improvement in knowledge of the languages of
the European Union within the Union's education systems, with the aim
of developing communication skills;
21 21 1. INTRODUCTION
- to encourage diversification in the languages taught in the Member
States, at all levels including higher education, giving pupils during their school career and students in higher education the opportunity to become competent in several languages of the European Union;
- to improve the learning and teaching of the languages of the European
Union;
- that to enhance communication skills, particular attention should be paid to methods which develop reading comprehension and writing as well as listening comprehension and speaking;
- to promote innovative methods in schools and universities which improve language skills, making language teaching and learning more effective;
- to teach classes in a foreign language for disciplines other than languages, providing bilingual teaching;
- to train language teachers by laying emphasis on the improvement of spoken skills, the study of language learning strategy and teaching methods and refreshing knowledge of the culture of the country whose language they are or will be teaching;
- to give priority to prospective language teachers or those called upon to teach their subject in a language other than their own;
22 22 1. INTRODUCTION
- that to encourage the teaching of foreign languages beyond the strict
confines of the language class, it would be desirable that teachers of
subjects others than languages should benefit from appropriate
language training, including in higher education.
In this Resolution it was highlighted that particular emphasis should be placed on the spoken language, listening comprehension, methodology, and the use of new technologies.
The Council Resolution of 14 February 2002 on the promotion of linguistic diversity and language learning in the framework of the implementation of the objectives of the European Year of Languages 2001 recalls among others:
- the Council Resolution of 31 March 1995 on improving and diversifying language learning and teaching within the education systems of the European
Union, according to which pupils should, as a general rule, have the opportunity of learning two languages of the Union other than their mother tongue(s);
-the Council Conclusions of 12 June 1995 on linguistic diversity and multilingualism in the European Union;
- the Report of the Education Council of 12 February 2001 which explicitly includes improving foreign language learning as one of its objectives.
23 23 1. INTRODUCTION
This Council Resolution emphasizes that:
- the knowledge of languages is one of the basic skills which each citizen needs to acquire in order to take part effectively in the European knowledge society;
- the knowledge of languages plays an important role in facilitating mobility (in an educational context, for professional purposes and for cultural and personal reasons);
- the knowledge of languages is beneficial for European cohesion.
This Council Resolution also recalls that the Report of the Education
Council of 12 February 2001 on the concrete future objectives of education and training systems, which explicitly includes improving foreign language learning as one of its objectives, should be implemented.
The Council Resolution of 14 February 2002 then goes on to invite the
Member States to take the necessary measures to offer pupils the opportunity to learn two or more languages in addition to their mother tongues, to promote the learning of foreign languages, and to also promote the application of innovative pedagogical methods, in particular also through teacher training.
The Language Policy Division of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, in 2005, based on its recommendation No. R (98) encourages member states to promote widespread plurilingualism by encouraging teaching programs at all levels that use
24 24 1. INTRODUCTION
a flexible approach and by encouraging the use of foreign languages in the teaching of non-linguistic subjects.
A note from the Council of the European Union, in Brussels on 20 April 2005, to the Education Committee, treating the subject “Luxembourg Presidency position on plurilingual education”, states that:
CLIL is emerging across Europe in response to increasing demands for pupils with better language skills. The European Commission’s Action Plan for the promotion of Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity underlines the major contribution that CLIL can make to the Union’s language learning goals (p. EN 2).
On this occasion, the Luxembourg Presidency also emphasizes how:
CLIL can be a means to give all learners, regardless of their educational, social or economic background, the opportunity to strengthen their knowledge of foreign languages, thus maintaining cultural and linguistic diversity and promoting individual multilingualism (p. EN 3).
During the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council of the European Union, the
Ministry of Education hosted a conference on the potential of plurilingual education in the changing European classroom. At this conference, chief European stakeholders from the education world studied how to incorporate ways to increase
25 25 1. INTRODUCTION
the usage of a foreign language to teach non-linguistic subjects into the Member
States’ education systems.
The Luxembourg Presidency drew the following conclusions:
1- there is a need for greater public awareness of the benefits of the CLIL
approach and the contribution it could make to enhance individual and
societal prosperity and social cohesion,
2- the promotion of CLIL could lead to increasing student and workforce
mobility, thus reinforcing European citizenship,
3- the establishment of promotional bodies at national level and EU level would
be helpful to contribute towards the introduction, development, coordination
and expansion of CLIL throughout the European Union,
4- specific CLIL training for teachers and educational administrators should be
encouraged, including a period of work or study in a country where the
target language is generally spoken,
5- ways of acknowledging CLIL participation of learners at different educational
levels are to be investigated,
6- a wide range of languages should be promoted as a medium for CLIL
initiatives,
26 26 1. INTRODUCTION
7- the exchange of information and scientific evidence on good CLIL practices
should be encouraged at European level (p. EN 3).
All these resolutions and agreements on faculty training and promoting and favoring plurilingual education in Europe take shape in the education legislation of each European country.
Dale and Tanner (2012) justify and explain the many benefits of embarking on and choosing CLIL. In this case they state:
General learning theories as well as language learning theories suggest that CLIL has a great educational potential and perhaps help to explain why, by 2004, 80% of the member states of the European Union provided some form of CLIL provision in mainstream education (Eurydice, 2006, in Dale & Tanner, 2012, p. 11).
The methodology used in the Preschool, Primary and Compulsory Secondary
Education curricula has been the Communicative Approach or Communicative
Language Teaching, coined by Hymes in 1966.
Communicative Language Teaching and Content and Language Integrated
Learning are not necessarily opposite approaches, they are simply two different
27 27 1. INTRODUCTION
methodologies applied for different purposes. As CLT is a more convenient approach used to teach a foreign language as a subject in and of itself, the CLIL approach is most optimum to teach a foreign language and content from a subject area at the same time.
Further along in this study we will take a deeper look into Communicative
Language Teaching to see how incorporating Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) into our Spanish education system can help students learn the
English language faster and in a more effective and meaningful way.
We will also take a look at the need for all stakeholders to situate and contextualize CLIL as it is applied in their own specific environments, as Coyle,
Holmes and King (2009) state: “… in relation to the ongoing growth of education itself and to the struggle to provide quality education and thus to provide a better future for young people” (p. 7).
There is no better way to conclude this section than by justifying the need to work on and further research CLIL methodology by quoting Frigols’ statement:
“CLIL: a European solution for a European need” (2010, p. 7).
28 28 1. INTRODUCTION
1.2. Research Aim & Relevance
First of all, just as I touched on in the Introduction of this study, I would like to emphasize an important point. Due to the fact that most students only have an A1
English level when they begin their studies at the university (as we will see further on), it may seem like taking a content course in a foreign language, where students learn contents and English language at the same time, is way too difficult of a task for them to undertake, but it is not impossible for them if we use the correct methodology. Since the European Commission published the White Paper on
Education and Training back in 1995 underlining the need to know other European cultures and languages, and the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages advocates the Plurilingual Approach by the Department of Language
Policy of the Council of Europe, aiming to reach communicative competence in the official languages and in at least one foreign language, the Spanish education legislation has shown how using a foreign language as the vehicular language to learn subject area contents has become the Spanish Ministry of Education’s target at all educational levels.
If we examine the traditional method used to teach foreign languages in
Spain over the past 40 years, we find that the Grammar Translation Method was the first method applied, and that although later methods have also been used in
Spain, the Grammar Translation method has always maintained its importance among foreign language teaching methodology.
29 29 1. INTRODUCTION
ENGLISH TEACHING METHODS & APPROACHES TIMELINE
European countries United States France France Germany United States United Kingdom
United Kingdom Seidenstücker 1840’s Grammmar Translation Method Plötz European countries 1940’s Ollendor
Krasen United States Natural Approach 1880’s Sauveur France
Gaugin France 1900’s Direct Method Sauveur Germany Rogers Widdowson Fries Bloomfield Seidenstücker Plötz Ollendor Berlitz Krasen Sauveur Gaugin Sauveur Berlitz Pitman 1920’s Oral Approach / Situational Language Teaching Pitman United Kingdom 1930’s 30 Fries 30 TIMELINE
United States 1950’s Audiolingual Method Bloomfield
1960’s Communictive Language Teaching Rogers United Kingdom Widdowson APPROACHES
&
Figure 1. English teaching methods & approaches timeline. timeline. approaches & methods teaching English Situational Language Teaching
Approach
Figure 1. Figure METHODS Approach /
Oral Audiolingual Method Communictive Language Teaching Natural Direct Method Grammmar Translation Method TEACHING
1840’s 1920’s 1930’s 1940’s 1880’s 1900’s 1950’s 1960’s ENGLISH
30 30 1. INTRODUCTION
In this section, we will briefly review the different methods used to teach
English at school in Spain throughout the last 40 years, following Howatt’s (1984) work on the history of English Language Teaching.
We begin with the Grammar Translation Method, which was developed in
Prussia at the end of the eighteenth century and whose major representatives were
J. Seidenstücker, K. Plötz, H.S. Ollendor and J. Meidinger. This method bases the teaching of a second language on the analysis of grammar rules and the memorization of vocabulary lists for later use in the translation of sentences and texts, taking as a reference the Latin and Greek teaching methodology.
This was followed by the Natural Method, developed in Boston at the end of the nineteenth century by L. Sauveur. This method based its foundations on the belief that the second language learning process is similar to the acquisition process of the first language, establishing a correspondence between the second language learning processes and the acquisition of the mother tongue.
Later on, the Natural Method turned into the Direct Method, based on the observation of the first language acquisition process in children. It was developed by L. Sauveur and M. Berlitz, and introduced in France and Germany at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was also widely recognized in the United
States.
31 31 1. INTRODUCTION
After World War II, the Audiolingual Method appeared, which gave priority to oral language, but without disregarding written language. It considered that foreign language learning was achieved through watching situations and listening, and mechanically repeating contextualized dialogues. A.P.R. Howatt (1984) wrote about this method in the following manner “The disconnected sentences of the grammar-translation approach are no sillier than the scientific drills of the audiolingual method with which they share many features” (p. 160).
The last significant method used before the Communicative Language
Teaching approach was the Oral Approach or Situational Language Teaching. This method appeared in Great Britain and it was based on the behaviourist models, teaching grammar in an inductive way. It was developed from the 1930’s to the
1960’s and its more active proponent was the Australian George Pittman. It was a functional method based on oral practice and, at the same time, the use of diverse situational contexts to present new words and structures.
Finally we come to the Communicative Language Teaching Method which, according to the current education legislation, is the method used in Spain to teach
English as a subject in all the compulsory levels. This method’s major aim is teaching how to communicate in real-life situations by using the foreign language through communicative competence and not just through linguistic competence.
This method was developed by several British linguists, C. Candlin and H.
32 32 1. INTRODUCTION
Widdowson, among others, at the end of the ’60s and coined by Hymes in 1966.
According to this method’s principles, real and authentic materials, or as similar to authentic as possible, must be used, and the foreign language is not only the language of study, but the means of communication in class as well. For this reason, the foreign language must always be used in class to carry out tasks, to explain concepts, to make clarifications, etc., using the mother tongue only in exceptional cases. The textbook is considered useful, but not the only resource used to teach second languages. In the communicative approach, some of the teacher’s different and diverse roles include facilitating learning by promoting communication among pupils, and assessing pupils’ language acquisition by taking into account their correct usage of the language as well as their fluency when communicating in the foreign language because these are both important factors.
Even though the communicative approach is the method that all the education acts advocate since the Ley Orgánica 1/1990, de 3 de octubre de 1990, de Ordenación General del Sistema Educativo (General Organic Law of the
Education System 1/1990 of October 3, 1990) went into effect, the change has been merely theoretical and legislative given that the real use of the communicative approach in our primary and secondary education classrooms is far from being correctly applied. It is said that the Spanish education system has been using the communicative approach to teach English since the ’90s; however, in most cases what it is really being used is a textbook specifically chosen by the
33 33 1. INTRODUCTION
English teachers themselves that follows the guidelines of the communicative approach, that contains activities that simulate real-life situations, and that attempts to use authentic texts, or simulate authentic texts. Nevertheless, most of the oral activities that appear in the textbook are not carried out because teachers consider that pupils are either too noisy when speaking, or that they do not have the sufficient previous knowledge or competence to successfully carry out the activities proposed by the authors or publishers. Moreover, the vehicular language used in class is not English but the students’ mother tongue, because once again most teachers consider that their pupils do not have a high enough language level to understand them when they speak and explain things in English. During
Bachillerato, the last two years of non-compulsory secondary education, when students are supposed to have already achieved an acceptable level of English, only the written skills of reading and writing are practiced because in the Prueba de
Acceso a la Universidad (PAU), the Spanish University Entrance Exam, only written skills in English are assessed. So little by little, the communicative approach is reduced to a kind of grammar-translation method in which students are not even required to know how to write full correct sentences with fluency, but are only expected to know how to fill in the gaps. This results in students having a good written command of complex grammatical structures while lacking the ability to use them orally.
34 34 1. INTRODUCTION
In addition, “... son numerosas las investigaciones que muestran que el docente tiende a enseñar como efectivamente aprendió y no sólo basándose en las teorías y conocimientos que recibió en su formación” (Carretero, 1998, p.19).
Carretero asserts that numerous studies show that teachers tend to teach not only based on the theories and principles that they were taught during their formation, but also using the same methods with which they were taught. As such, we can deduce that teaching our future teachers the theoretical principles of the communicative approach, the tasks based approach, or CLIL is not sufficient; we must teach them by actually using the approach we hope to foment. If we believe that these methods are effective in the teaching of foreign languages, then these are the methods that should be used at all levels of the Spanish education system for the teaching of foreign languages. Given that students need to hear their teachers and professors communicating with them in the target language in order to receive the necessary input before being able to produce the foreign language by themselves, the communication process must happen in the classroom. The activities and tasks developed should address the students’ acquisition of the communicative competence (making lists, ordering, classifying, comparing, problem-solving, sharing personal experiences, projects, etc.) always ensuring that the language usage be as real as possible. And above all, students should not be asked to write something they have not previously learned orally.
35 35 1. INTRODUCTION
Moving on, the European Commission has held, as one of their main aims, the development of a policy that favours bilingualism or multilingualism in the
European countries. To achieve this goal, the European Commission, in the White
Paper on Education and Training (1995), urgently advises the European countries to start teaching foreign languages using methodologies that integrate language and non-linguistic contents, seeking important aspects such as meaningful learning, autonomy, and motivation, among others in the teaching/learning process.
In the conclusions of the European Council meeting in Barcelona in March of 2002, the governments of the member states appealed for further action for the improvement of the basic competences through linguistic plurality, understood as the knowledge of the mother language and at least two foreign languages.
Article 2 of the Organic Law of Education (LOE) 2/2006, 3rd May, states that the Spanish education system will strive towards the achievement of educating students so that they are able to communicate in the official and co-official languages and in one or more foreign languages, but since then the country’s social, political and economic circumstances have changed producing serious consequences for the education system. This has compelled the government to improve the LOE model, which does not guarantee the effective knowledge of, at least, one foreign language.
36 36 1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays new plurilingual programs have been passed in Spain to improve our students’ competence in the English language. The main aim of these programs is to protect and develop the European languages, making them fountains of enrichment and comprehension among people, following the CEFRL recommendations.
The Regional Ministry of Education in the Valencian Autonomous
Community, through Decree 127/2012, seeks to provide students with the necessary tools to adapt to society’s new demands in which being communicatively competent in the English language and other foreign languages, as well as knowledgeable in the usage of Information and Communication
Technologies, is a must.
These multilingual programs let students study in at least three languages: the official language which is Spanish, the co-official language which is Valencian, and a foreign language, generally English. In these multilingual programs, the language of instruction in certain subjects differs. Prior to these programs, English language was only studied as a subject in and of itself. However, within these programs certain subjects, such as Art or Physical Education, are taught in English to increase the English contact hours in the curricula in order to improve students’ competence in English. The number of contact hours that students have in each of the three languages depends on the school’s Linguistic Program, which has
37 37 1. INTRODUCTION
previously been approved by the corresponding administration. Because of this, some schools teach English language plus one subject area taught in English, the minimum number of hours required in English, while others teach most of the curricula in English, creating an extreme difference among pupils attending all public schools.
The curriculum of the areas is determined by the Decree 108/2014, independently of the language of instruction, and any non-linguistic area can be taught in any of the three languages (Spanish, Valencian or English).
Prior to the implementation of the plurilingual programs, English language was taught using the Communicative Approach methodology, which is not very clear on the language of instruction that should be used during the lessons. In
Chapter II of Decree 127/2012, point 4 states that when teaching a foreign language, the learning will be necessarily in the target language and the students will have to use the target language in oral and written communications.
If subject areas are going to be taught in English, it is necessary to train teachers in curricular areas and in the specific methodology required for the plurilingual education programs.
38 38 1. INTRODUCTION
It is obvious that to achieve the expectations of this Decree, complementary measures will need to be taken such as having trained teachers in curricular areas who master the methodologies and knowledge in the subject areas available.
These teachers will also need to have access to information technologies and suitable didactic resources.
Often English as a second language teachers worry about the best way to teach English to their pupils, wondering if it is correct to use the mother tongue at all during the English class. Monolingual students are fundamentally different from second language users who are seen as multi-competence students (the compound state of a mind with two grammars) who can do things that a monolingual students cannot. Knowing a second language affects not only the student’s knowledge of the mother tongue but enhances other perceptions and abilities too (Choong, 2006).
Another aspect to bear in mind is that it is important that our English teachers are fluent and appropriate when teaching the English language, but we can also find advantages of having teachers that are not native speakers. Cook
(2002) states that students learning a second language are more likely to identify with a teacher that is not a native speaker than with a teacher that is, primarily because teachers that are not native speakers can share their own experiences of
39 39 1. INTRODUCTION
learning the language with their students, they are familiar with the frequent difficulties, and can be more sensitive when students make mistakes.
Cook (2001) states that the mother language should not be banned in the
English class but English language use should be maximized. As the mother language is always present in our students’ minds, it would be artificial and inefficient to avoid using it. English teachers can use the mother language when necessary in order to convey meaning, to check comprehension, to give direction, and to manage the class, for example.
These things can be very difficult or impossible to achieve without using the students’ mother tongue, and it saves time wasted by following a strict rule of mother tongue prohibition (Choong, 2006).
Nevertheless, even though our previous education system, regulated by the
Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación (Organic Law on Education
2/2006, 3rd May 2006), promoted using the Communicative Approach to teach foreign languages in our schools, other recently designed approaches are also used to help students improve their skills when communicating in a foreign language.
40 40 1. INTRODUCTION
As Graddol (2006) differentiates in his book English next, one of these approaches is Content and Language Integrated Learning, also known as CLIL, which is used to teach content courses using the English language as the language of instruction. This approach improves the students’ skills in English at the same time as they learn content from other areas. This approach is used by the multilingual programs when teaching Art or Physical Education in English.
The Content and Language Integrated Learning method is also known as
Content-Based Language Teaching, Bilingual Education, and Content-Based
Instruction, among others, but for the research referred to in this paper, the term
CLIL will be used, as it is the term that best defines the methodology treated here.
To successfully develop CLIL in our schools, teachers of subjects other than
English, with a sufficient proficiency level in English language (B2), are sought. For this reason, teachers with high proficiency level in English are necessary.
To facilitate that students in the Preschool Education Teacher’s undergraduate group, the population of this study, acquire the necessary knowledge and competence in English to teach English at the Preschool Education level when they graduate, the CLIL method is used to teach the Didactics of the English
Language in Preschool Education course.
41 41 1. INTRODUCTION
This research has been carried out during class time in accordance with Pica
(2005) who argues that even the content area classroom is an excellent site for descriptive studies and action research. Although it is a place where intervening variables make it difficult to test theories or run experiments, classroom studies can provide data of important theoretical and pedagogical consequence for the field.
According to Pica (2005), task-based activities and information gap tasks are the most useful types of tasks for learning, teaching and carrying out research.
The fact that schools are seeking teachers with specialties other than English to teach area subjects in English calls for research, innovation and decision making to help students improve their English level enough to become qualified to teach other subjects in English before they graduate from the university. One method of achieving this objective is CLIL, by using English as the language of instruction in the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course. Like this, students can improve their English level and acquire the content of the course simultaneously.
The aim of this paper is to reflect on, design and develop the research on how the use of the CLIL approach during the teaching of the Didactics of the English
Language in Preschool Education course in the Preschool Education Teacher
Undergraduate Program can help students acquire the specific contents of the course while improving their English language competence.
42 42 1. INTRODUCTION
The research was carried out at the University of Alicante during the academic year 2011-2012. The aim of this research is to evaluate to what extent the use of one of the most innovative methodologies used in the learning of a foreign language, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), helps students improve their level of English.
In this research project, the results obtained seek to explain how the use of the
CLIL methodology in the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool Education Teacher Undergraduate Program affects the students’ communicative competence in English.
DIALANG is the method used to measure the students’ progress in the English language after taking the course by assessing different language abilities and skills such as listening, reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar, etc.
DIALANG is an online diagnostic language assessment system created to determine the level of proficiency in 14 European languages based on the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL). Students were given a pre-test before taking the course and a post-test after taking the course to measure their knowledge in English before and after being exposed to the CLIL methodology.
43 43 1. INTRODUCTION
English Language DIALANG Didactics Course in Preschool Education Teacher Undergraduate Program
CLIL DIALANG
Figure 2. Research development.
Further on in this paper, the CLIL methodology and the DIALANG diagnosis language test are analyzed in depth.
In the next section, the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) method is briefly introduced and then we move on to study the Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach.
44 44 1. INTRODUCTION
1.3. Description of Communicative Language
Teaching
The communicative approach was widely accepted during the 1980s and ’90s, but in the past decade other approaches have appeared and have been gaining ground. These methods are the Tasks Based Learning approach and the Content and Language Integrated Learning approach, which can easily be considered their successors.
Frequently, traditional approaches and methods that focus on grammar are taken as models, but without giving much importance to linguistic competence.
Nowadays, however, we should take it one step further by working towards achieving real communicative competence.
Dell Hymes coined the term “Communicative Competence” in 1966 in reaction to Noam Chomsky’s term of “Linguistic Competence” in 1965.
Hymes (1972) sees Communicative Competence as the intuitive functional knowledge and control of the principles of language usage. He understands learning a language as the language a user needs to know to use the language not only correctly (based on linguistic competence), but also appropriately (based on communicative competence). This approach does not decrease the importance of
45 45 1. INTRODUCTION
learning the grammar rules of a language but it takes what learning a foreign language is and what is necessary to communicate using the foreign language a step further. In fact, grammar is present in one of the four sub-competences of communicative competence, the linguistic sub-competence. However, it is given the exact same importance as all of the other aspects of the language that are also considered.
As developed by Hymes (1972), communicative competence is composed of four sub-competences: linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competence. These four sub-competences should be developed when teaching a foreign language. Frequently the four sub-competences are best learned if the language learner is immersed into the culture of the target language country, but this is not essential to developing and acquiring the four sub-competences; it is also totally feasible within the context of the English classroom.
The following points briefly explain the four sub-competences that make up communicative competence:
1. Linguistic competence is the knowledge of the language code,
grammar and vocabulary, and the conventions of its written
representation, script and orthography. The grammar component
includes phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics.
46 46 1. INTRODUCTION
2. Sociolinguistic competence is the knowledge of socio-cultural rules
of use depending on the setting of the communication, the topic, and
the relationships among the people communicating.
3. Discourse competence is the knowledge of how to produce and
comprehend oral or written texts in the modes of speaking/writing and
listening/reading, respectively.
4. Strategic competence is the ability to recognize and repair
communication breakdowns before, during, or after they occur.
Canale and Swain (1980) applied Hyme’s Communicative Approach model to second language teaching. Being communicatively competent means that the target language student has acquired the required four sub-competences:
1. Grammatical competence: the ability to create grammatically correct utterances. 2. Sociolinguistic competence: the ability to produce socio- linguistically appropriate utterances. 3. Discourse competence: the ability to produce coherent and cohesive utterances. 4. Strategic competence: the ability to solve communication problems as they arise (pp. 29-30).
Once we understand where we are coming from, we can decide in which direction we want to go from there. In this case, it is towards one of the targets of this research: the CLIL approach.
47 47
48
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
50
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. CLIL Approach
CLIL is one of the most innovative and successful methods developed to help students reach plurilingualism. It means Content and Language Integrated
Learning. This approach makes reference to teaching subjects other than the
English language, such as science, geography, history, maths, or physical education, to name a few, using the foreign language instead of the students’ mother tongue.
CLIL is not a new form of language education. It is not a new form of subject education. It is a fusion of both. It is content-driven, and this is where it both extends the experience of learning a language, and where it becomes different to existing language-teaching approaches (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010, p. 1).
The term CLIL was created in 1994 by David Marsh and Anne Maljers. But this approach is not new, as Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols (2008) explain that 5000 years ago, in what is now Iraq, the Akkadians had conquered the Sumerians and wanted to learn the local language, so Sumerian was used to teach several subjects (technology, botany and zoology) to the Akkadians. Another example is how Latin was used as a language of instruction in European universities for centuries, becoming the language of law, medicine, theology, science and philosophy. If we look for more examples throughout history, we can find the
Quebec case back in 1965, which is analyzed in depth below with Mohan’s
51 51 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Knowledge Framework, and finally, in the U.K. in the 1970s, the expansion of language immersion programs with Languages Across the Curriculum.
As explained by Aliaga (2008), when putting the CLIL approach into practice, it may vary depending on the pupils’ age, their sociological background, and the aims pursued. Many varied practices exist throughout Europe regarding
CLIL implementation such as differences in the program starting age, the languages taught, the number of hours taught using the CLIL program, and the methods and subjects taught, from storytelling to geography units, among others.
Wolff (2007) differentiates CLIL schools from traditional schools by describing them as: the modern schools that have adopted a methodology to prepare their students for future life, where cooperation among teachers is fundamental and where the European projection is evident.
2.1.1. CLIL Origins: Mohan’s Knowledge
Framework
The origins of this method occurred in Vancouver, Canada, with Mohan’s
(1986) Knowledge Framework, a conceptual framework which systematically
52 52 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
integrates language and content. This framework was developed in the ’60s as an immersion model in Quebec, Canada. Later on, as Jones & Sin (2004) compile in their work, content-based approaches to language teaching were used in the USA in the ’80s school curricula and “integrative” theories and methods arose in the
’90s. Some focused on the aim of improving language skills and others, like Mohan
(1986), saw an integrated pedagogy where language and content development were worked on at the same time. Following Mohan’s framework, Tang (1994) encourages teachers to find ways to enable ESL students to access academic knowledge and develop cognitive skills while they are acquiring proficiency in
English, employing approaches which incorporate content goals and integrate language and content.
As Mohan (1991) points out, language and content integration has to be carefully planned. The design of the program has to guide students through the usage of functional language and enable them to understand how to form, use and give meaning to the language of a content area (Mohan, 1991, in Tang, 1994).
Tang (1994) summarizes Mohan’s (1986) Knowledge Framework in the following way:
There are certain knowledge structures which are common across content areas. They include classification, principles, evaluation, description, temporal
53 53 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
sequence and choice. These structures are common across languages. They are thinking skills which are translated into rhetorical patterns in oral discourse and written text. They can also be represented in graphic form (...) Research results indicate that graphics can enhance ESL student learning of content knowledge (Early, Mohan & Hooper; Tang, 1991; 1992a; 1992b). Each knowledge structure is characterized by a specific set of linguistic devices (...) Thus, the Knowledge Framework enables the teacher to systematically develop language skills and content knowledge in ESL students. Because knowledge structures are common across content areas, the Knowledge Framework permits the encoding and retrieval of knowledge across the curriculum (pp.101- 102).
According to Beckett (2004), Mohan’s structures of Classification, Principles and Evaluation can be applied to learn and express theoretical knowledge and
Description, Sequence and Choice structures can be applied to learn and carry out the practical aspects of knowledge.
The Classification structure can be used to teach students how to define, develop and apply new concepts. The Principles structure can be used to teach students how to interpret, explain and predict data, and draw conclusions. The Evaluation structure can be used to teach students how to make judgements and evaluations, and express personal opinions. The Description structure can be used to teach students how to describe events such as a science experiment. The Knowledge Framework is conducive to identifying and teaching thinking skills and language as each of the knowledge structures has thinking skills and distinct linguistic features that need to be learned when carrying out an activity within a certain knowledge structure (Beckett & Gonzalez, 2004, p. 167).
54 54 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
According to Gleason (2011), Mohan’s six structures have thinking skills and language associated with specific key visuals that relate to the thinking skills.
Gleason illustrates the six structures in these three pairs: Classification &
Description, Principles & Sequence, and finally, Evaluation & Choice (Slater and
Gleason, 2011).
Classification & Description go together because the practice of describing something infers an understanding of a set of classifications into different typologies. For example, a knowledgeable description of an invertebrate in science would involve understanding types of animals according to their structure, and defining them.
Principles & Sequence go together because, based on our theoretical understanding of the principles behind any order, we create sequential orders.
Sometimes we order according to a means or an end like when cooking a recipe, or to discover a cause and effect like when reading a novel.
And finally, Evaluation & Choice go together because decision making, problem solving and critical thinking always involve understanding specific contents in order to be able to choose the best option. Obviously, in order to evaluate and select correctly, one needs to master the previous structures.
55 55 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Language is the means through which teaching and learning is carried out, so teachers need strategies that help them develop these academic literacy skills such as academically appropriate ways of thinking, talking, writing, problem solving, etc. in all their students. But how can teachers from different content areas prepare their units to ensure they are addressing the academic language and thinking skills that students need to succeed across the curriculum?
Slater and Gleason (2011) consider the Knowledge Framework to be a useful tool to help teachers integrate language and content into the curriculum of any subject area, as it unifies the connections between language and thinking skills in content areas.
At a simple level, the Knowledge Framework can be exploited to ensure the integration of language and content, helping English language learners facing and understanding the linguistic demands of content areas. At a more complex level, the Knowledge Framework can be used as a theoretical framework to analyse classroom discourse and to help illustrate how content area teachers use language to teach and promote critical thinking (Slater & Gleason, 2011, p. 7).
Following Mohan’s distinction between activity and topic, where a topic is anything that can be talked about and an activity is “a combination of action and
56 56 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
theoretical understanding”” (Mohan, 1986, p. 42), creating activities based on the foundations of the Knowledge Framework, students develop understanding of the studied content and focus on the language used to explain the content. Students learn the content by carrying out the activities and tasks proposed and they also learn the necessary language to develop them.
“The six knowledge structures appear in every content area across the curriculum (...) both in the content itself and in the classroom management language that revolves around teaching and learning content” (Slater & Gleason,
2011, p. 10).
This approach can be applied by foreign language teachers who develop contents from other areas in the foreign language class, and also by subject teachers who develop their lessons using the foreign language as the language of instruction. In both cases, students acquire specific contents of the area and the foreign language simultaneously.
However, following Tang (1994):
Content-area teachers often seem reluctant to use approaches which are perceived to be a means of fostering the work of the English teacher (Langer & Applebee, 1987), and language teachers do not necessarily have the expertise to teach content-area subject matter, particularly at the secondary level. One solution to the problem is from ESL and content teachers to collaborate in
57 57 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
designing and conducting units and tasks (p. 101).
Many studies and research projects have been carried out applying CLIL. By planning language learning and teaching through a subject, the teacher creates activities that represent learning the specific discourse of the subject matter content and acquisition of language, constructing real knowledge. Through CLIL, students have to know how to use the language by knowing the linguistic code, and through using the language, students learn how to communicate meaningfully and appropriately (Beckett & Gonzalez, 2004).
2.1.2. What is CLIL?
The English term CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), was coined by David Marsh, from University of Jyväskylä in Finland, and Anne Maljers in 1995 (Frigols, 2010).
To take a deeper look into this term we will start by defining what this approach covers in the words of Marsh:
“Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language” (Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D., 2010, p.
1).
58 58 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
CLIL Learning Language and Area Contents Area Contents
Using the foreign language
Learning while Learning Learning
Area Contents Foreign Language Foreign Language 59 59 while
Contents go first Learning Language and
Using the area contents Using the area contents Using the foreign language Contents go first Foreign language learning is determined by the area contents Learning Figure 3. Content and Language IntegratedArea Contents Learning.
Foreign language learning is determined by the area contents Figure 3. Content Figure and Language Integrated Learning. CLIL
59 59 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Coyle also highlights in CLIL the concept of integration: “A powerful pedagogic tool which aims to safeguard the subject being taught whilst promoting language as a medium for learning as well as an objective of the learning process itself” (Coyle in Marsh, 2002, p. 37).
Using Coyle and Marsh’s definition of the term in CLIL/EMILE - The European
Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential:
CLIL is a lifelong concept that embraces all sectors of education from primary to adults, from a few hours per week to intensive modules lasting several months. It may involve project work, examination courses, drama, puppets, chemistry practices and mathematical investigations. CLIL is flexible and dynamic, where topics and subjects – foreign languages and non-language subjects - are integrated in some kind of mutually beneficial way so as to provide value-added educational outcomes for the widest possible range of learners (Coyle, 2008, p. 3).
Kees de Bot (in Marsh, 2002) pinpoints the meaning of CLIL in the following statement:
It is obvious that teaching a subject in a foreign language is not the same as an integration of language and content… language teachers and subject teachers need to work together… [to] formulate the new didactics needed for a real integration of form and function in language teaching (p. 32).
The Spanish specialist on foreign language teaching and learning, Mª Jesús
Frigols, has worked hand in hand with David Marsh on the CLIL Project, and she
60 60 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
defines CLIL in the following manner:
“CLIL is a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language”
(2010, p. 3).
If we take a look at the CLIL definition in the template “Knowledge theories supporting CLIL” created by the CEFIRE (2013) in the Valencian Autonomous
Community to help teachers understand and learn CLIL methodology, we find the following:
CLIL is a term created in 1994 by David Marsh and Anne Maljers as a methodology similar to but distinct from language immersion and content-based instruction. It is an approach for learning content through an additional language (foreign or second), thus teaching both the subject and the language. The idea of its proponent was to create an “umbrella term” which encompasses different forms of using language as a medium of instruction (p. 1).
As explained above, CLIL is based on methodological principles established by research on “language immersion” and it has been identified as very important by the European Commission because it provides substantial exposure to the foreign language not possible in the foreign language classroom, as well as opportunities to use the foreign language while learning it instead of teaching a foreign language to be used in the future.
61 61 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Apart from the language and content methodological approach, CLIL makes developing applications of linguistic and psycholinguistic tenets possible, such as:
- Bloom’s taxonomy of learning domains. - Learning styles and Gardner’s multiple intelligences. - Vigostky’s scaffolding theory. - Jim Cummins’ common underlying linguistic competence. - Krashen’s theory of learning versus acquisition (CEFIRE, 2013, p. 4).
The CLIL approach was so important for the European Commission that they decided to promote the teaching of non-linguistic subjects in foreign languages by encouraging the training of teachers to enhance their language competences.
Under these circumstances we may wonder what the benefits of CLIL are.
According to Bentley (2010) CLIL aims to:
- Introduce new learners to new concepts through studying the curriculum in a non-native language. - Improve learners’ production of the language of curricular subjects. - Improve learners’ performance in both curricular subjects and the target language. - Increase learners’ confidence in the target language and the L1. - Provide materials which develop thinking skills from the start. - Encourage stronger links with values of community and citizenship. - Make the curricular subject the main focus of classroom material (p. 6).
62 62 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Generally, there are many ways of describing the characteristics attributed to
CLIL. Some of the acronyms that make reference to approaches with similar methodology as CLIL are listed below. They were collected by McDougald (2012) and describe approaches containing similarities with CLIL methodology (Figure 4):
• Content-based Instruction (CBI) • Content-based Language Instruction (CBLI) • Content-based Language Teaching (CBLT) • Integration of Content and Language • Content and Language Integrated Classrooms • English-enriched Content Teaching • Content-enriched English Teaching • English-focused Content Teaching • Content-focused English Teaching • Content-centered English Teaching • English-centered Content Teaching • Content-driven English Teaching • English-driven Content Teaching • English-sensitive Content Teaching • Content-sensitive English Teaching • Content-oriented Language Learning • Content-infused Language Teaching • Theme-based Language Teaching • Topic-based Language Teaching • Discipline-based ESL Instruction • Teaching Content through English • Teaching English through Content • Foreign Language Medium Instruction (FLMI)
63 63 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
• Teaching through Foreign Languages (TTFL) • Teaching Content in a Foreign Language (TCFL) • Dual-focused Language Instruction • Adjunct / Linked Language courses • Integration of Languages and Disciplines (BILD) • Four-handed foreign language instruction • Learning with Languages • Learning through an additional language • Foreign Language Immersion Program (FLIP) • Plurilingual Instruction • Foreign Languages Across the Curriculum (FLAC) • Extended Second Language Learning • Language-enhanced Content Instruction • Integrated Curriculum • Bridge Program • Cross-Curricular Teaching • Interdisciplinary Teaching, etc.
64 64 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
in
driven Sensitive Language Teaching ‐ centered
‐
Teaching Teaching ‐ Teaching
enriched focused
& ‐ ‐
Dual Foreign Language
English Content Content English English a Content Teaching Content English Content Content Language Instruction
Integrated Classrooms
Content‐based Teaching Content Learning through an Foreign Language Teaching Content in
Language Teaching Through English additional language Immersion Program a Foreign Language Language Second
English‐focused based
Foreign Language ‐ & Integration of Content‐Sensitive Plurilingual
Content Teaching Teaching Medium Instruction Instruction Content & Language English Teaching Based Interdisciplinary Teaching English Through Content Integration of Content‐oriented Teaching Through Instruction Foreign Language Content
Teaching English Extended Content & Language Learning Skills Immersion Program Content Language Teaching Foreign Languages Language Learning McDougald Through Content Integrated Classrooms CLIL similar methods Theme‐based Content‐support collection Interdisciplinary Language Teaching ELT English‐enriched Teaching Content Teaching
Topic‐base Learning with Integrated Learning Skills
Language Teaching Languages methods Based Curriculum Content‐centered 65 65 Disciplines English Teaching Program Discipline‐based Cross‐Curricular Content‐based
Bridge Programcollection Content‐driven
Instruction Instruction Plurilingual McDougald ESL Instruction Teaching similar
Integrated English Teaching Curriculum Integration of additional language Bridge Learning through an CLIL
Sheltered Subject Foreign Languages Integration of Extended Second Dual‐focused Matter Teaching Across the Curriculum Languages & Disciplines Language Learning Languages & Language Instruction Approaches similar to CLIL collection. CLIL to similar Approaches
Figure 4. Approaches similar to CLIL collection.
Instruction Figure 4. Figure
support ‐ ELT Curricular ‐ Through English Teaching Foreign Language Teaching Content
Languages Medium Learning with Foreign Languages Cross Content Across the Curriculum Teaching Through Foreign Languages
based based
‐ focused Teaching based base
oriented ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Instruction
Topic Content ESL English Theme Matter Teaching ‐ Discipline Content Sheltered Subject Language Teaching Content Language Teaching Language Teaching Language Teaching 65 65 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Once what CLIL is has been clearly stated, it is also very important to clarify what CLIL is not. Coyle (2008) emphasizes:
What we do know is that CLIL is not:
• Replicating models successful in very different environments (ex. the Canadian model) but rather a flexible European approach with a range of models responding to situational & contextual demands; • ‘Backdoor’ language teaching or additional subject teaching; • Favoring languages at the expense of the non-language subjects; • A threat to subject specialism at any level; • Teaching what students already know but in a different code (ex. the foreign language). • Teaching what students need to know but exchanging the language of instruction; • A fashionable trend - it’s been around a long time; • Aiming to make students ‘bilingual’ in the traditional sense; • Elitist and therefore only for more able students; • Dependent on ‘buying in’ foreign national teachers (p. 5).
Changing the topic now, one fear teachers may have is the feasibility of CLIL methodology in heterogeneous classes like the ones we have. In response to this concern, in the next section, the topic of Special Education Needs Students and
CLIL is addressed.
66 66 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.3. Special Educational Needs Students &
CLIL
In The CLIL Trajectory: Educational Innovation for the 21st Century iGeneration,
Marsh (2013, pp. 71-92) explains in the chapter of his work dedicated to the
Diversity Dimension in CLIL that in certain environments it was thought for some time that children considered to have special educational needs, should not have the pressure of learning difficult subjects such as foreign languages placed on them. However, CLIL practice has been found to be especially suitable for students diagnosed with different special educational needs.
There are considerable similarities between CLIL methodologies and practice and those pioneered by leaders in special needs education and languages.
In 2005 there was a major concern about SEN children frequently being denied access to learning languages because it was considered too demanding of a subject for them (McColl, 2005).
Language acquisition theories and practice have proved that the human capacity for learning languages is not limited. Thus it is possible for a second or a third language to be acquired even by people suffering from serious learning difficulties. So, children and young people with SEN should be exposed to a
67 67 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
number of languages in a pedagogical climate that is both encouraging and enabling (Poor et al., 2004).
The content-driven language-supported activities common in CLIL can be found in various forms of innovation in different types of schools catering to children with
SEN, and some of the outcomes are highly impressive (European Commission,
2006). There are certain types of SEN students who may not learn a second language, but the CLIL type approach has been widely used with varying degrees of success.
Content and Language Integrated Learning involves a range of teaching and learning practices which accommodate diversity (Alton-Lee, 2003).
After the 2003 European Year of People with Disabilities, the European
Commission investigated the teaching of foreign languages among students with special needs across all the member states, and in 2005, the main aim of Special
Educational Needs in Europe: The Teaching & Learning of Languages, was to review language learning and seek out best practices. The report compiled negative assumptions towards the ability of certain young students with special needs to succeed, antiquated arguments that continue to create barriers for SEN students to have access to learning foreign languages.
68 68 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2003) recognized cooperative learning, teachers working together and students helping each other, as effective within inclusive education for special needs students. Later on, in 2010, the European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML) published the
European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education (Marsh, Mehisto, Wolff, Frigols,
2010) where eight sets of competences involving the application of knowledge and putting theory into practice were introduced. These focused on cooperative learning and teaching, both being highly significant for both CLIL and SEN contexts.
A second concept shared by CLIL and SEN methodologies is autonomous learning, which encourages learners to develop the capacity to plan, monitor and edit personal progress internalizing experiences.
A third feature of these two contexts is using mixed-ability groups. Both approaches are found to be very useful for learners when working with students with different ability levels, as it is highly enriching for all members in a group. For this reason, individualized learning and teaching is promoted and carried out in both contexts too (Figure 5).
Next, we are going to continue with how to apply CLIL in class.
69 69 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
CLIL Suitability for SEN students
CLIL SEN
‐ ability
Inclusive Inclusive education Cooperative Diversity Mix groups SEN Similarities Learning adaptations education Certain SEN between students CLIL & SEN Autonomous Diversity
succed instudents
methods Learning adaptations language learning CLIL Mix‐ability CLIL Learning Centres groups
accomodates 70 70
diversity CLIL Learning Centres Learning Learning Cooperative Autonomous
Figure 5. CLIL Suitability for SEN students.
Suitability for SEN
CLIL Suitability for SEN 5. CLIL Suitability for students. Figure SEN
CLIL &
CLIL CLIL between methods diversity CLIL Similarities accomodates
learning students language succed in Certain SEN
70
70 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.4. Applying CLIL in Class
As we have seen, many names exist to describe the methodology used in the CLIL approach. All these methodologies share the same CLIL philosophy and tenets: learning a foreign language and learning about a content area at the same time. But when teaching a content area using a foreign language many problems may arise. It is not as easy as using English language to teach other contents. As
Darn (2006) explains:
… a CLIL lesson is not a language lesson neither is it a subject lesson transmitted in a foreign language, nevertheless, CLIL includes many aspects of language teaching methodology, and, of course, relies on the communicative language teaching tenet that language should be presented, taught and practiced in a meaningful context (p. 3).
When trying to apply and use the CLIL methodology in our classes and lessons we may be aware of what working with CLIL involves. Frigols (2010) states what working with CLIL involves:
- Using CLIL is a natural approach to language learning and draws on the
theoretical basis of Second Language Acquisition.
- In CLIL, the content drives the language.
- CLIL develops and promotes the acquisition of cognitive skills.
- CLIL involves social learning.
71 71 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
- CLIL is student-centred.
- CLIL follows a constructivist approach.
All these CLIL characteristics are very positive for students and make learning a language more interesting and useful. They help the learner face learning a foreign language in a motivating and meaningful way. CLIL principles are innovative but not novel, as CLIL methodology is based on, resembles and incorporates many aspects of English Language Teaching (Darn, 2006):
• CLIL and Situational Learning. Language is presented in real-life
contexts in which language acquisition can take place.
• CLIL and Language Acquisition. CLIL encourages acquisition over
conscious learning. Since language acquisition is a cyclical rather than
linear process, the thematic nature of CLIL facilitates the creation of a
functional-notional syllabus, adding new language whilst recycling pre-
existing knowledge.
• CLIL and the Natural Approach. Exploring language in a meaningful
context is an element of both natural and communicative language
learning. Learners develop fluency by using the language to
communicate for a variety of purposes. Fluency precedes grammatical
72 72 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
accuracy and errors are a natural part of language learning, thus the
concept of ‘interlanguage’ is encompassed.
• CLIL and Motivation. Natural use of language can boost a learner’s
motivation towards learning languages. In CLIL, language is a means not
an end, and when learners are interested in a topic they will be motivated
to acquire language to communicate.
• CLIL and Current ELT Practice. CLIL adheres closely to current trends
in language teaching. Grammar is secondary to lexis, fluency is the focus
rather than accuracy, and language is seen in chunks, as in the lexical
approach. Learners are required to communicate content to each other,
and skills are integrated with each other and with language input. In
many ways the CLIL approach is similar to a modern ELT concept of
integrated skills lessons.
As stated above, CLIL methodology employs many characteristics of
English Language Teaching approaches. But CLIL also has its own peculiarities.
CLIL compendium contributors organized CLIL objectives and identified five dimensions related to core principles of the CLIL approach as practiced in Europe
(Pinkley, 2011). These dimensions can unify the learning and use of additional languages for curricular standards. These five dimensions are as follows:
73 73 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The Cultural Dimension. This dimension makes reference to building intercultural knowledge and understanding, developing intercultural communication skills, learning about one’s own specific neighboring countries, regions and minority groups, and introducing a wider cultural context of one’s own region.
The Environmental Dimension. The aim of this dimension is to prepare for internalization, specifically one’s own region’s integration, obtaining access to international certification and enhancing school profiles.
The Language Dimension. This dimension refers to improving overall English language competence, developing oral communication skills, deepening bilingual interests and attitudes, and introducing English as a target second language.
The Content Dimension. Providing opportunities to study content through different perspectives, having access to subject-specific target language terminology, and preparing for future studies and/or working life is the goal of this dimension.
The Learning Dimension. This last dimension stands for complementing individual learning strategies, diversifying methods and forms of classroom practice and increasing learner motivation.
74 74 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Environmental
Cultural Learning
Pinkley CLIL Dimensions
Content Language
Figure 6. Pinkley CLIL 5 Dimensions.
We can see that in these five dimensions, issues relating to culture, environment, language content and learning are highlighted. Each of these dimensions includes a number of focus points carried out differently according to three major factors: age-range of learners, socio-linguistic environment, and degree of exposure to CLIL. Based on the dimensions outlined above, proponents of CLIL list several key benefits for students: increased motivation, meaningful use of English to reach immediate, real-life goals, development of multicultural
75 75 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
awareness, and preparation for future studies and work in a global context
(Pinkley, n.d.).
According to Coyle, Homes and King (2009), lessons can involve joint planning across a number of subject areas focusing on the new curriculum dimensions in England, some of which can be applied to our Spanish curricula competences such as:
- Identity and cultural diversity
- Healthy lifestyles
- Community participation
- Enterprise
- Global dimension and sustainable development
- Technology and the media
- Creativity and critical thinking
On the other hand, Coyle (1999) developed the 4Cs Framework working towards a cohesive conceptual tool and was in uenced by the early work of Mohan and his Knowledge Framework (1986).
76 76 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Coyle’s 4Cs framework for CLIL is explained below:
Communication: based on interaction, in a communicative context developing appropriate language knowledge and skills, rather than reaction.
Content: based on progression in knowledge, skills, and understanding the subject matter.
Cognition: based on engaging or challenging the learner by developing thinking skills.
Culture: based on opportunities for deepening and articulating an explicit awareness.
From this perspective, CLIL involves learning to use language appropriately whilst using language to learn effectively.
Taking into account Coyle’s (1999) 4 Cs, a well-planned CLIL lesson should combine the following elements:
Communication: Using the language to learn while learning to use the language itself.
Content: Allowing students to progress in knowledge, skills and comprehension of the specific topics of a determined syllabus (Figure 7).
77 77 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Cognition: Developing cognitive skills that link concepts formation, knowledge and
language.
Culture: Allowing the exposition of diverse and varied perspectives and of shared
knowledge that make us more conscious of others and of oneself.
Aim: Use of EnglishAim Language: Use of English Language English Language Procedures for Procedures in TeachingEng lis h InnovationLanguage Teaching English in teaching English in teaching& Investigation Innovation Pre‐school COURSE: & Investigation Preschool DidacticsCOU ofRSE: the EnglishDida Languagectics of in PreEnglish‐school La Educationanguage in Preschool Education Resources for Assessing English Teaching English in Pre‐school Resources for Assessing English in Pre‐school teaching English in Preschool in Preschool
Figure 7. Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course contents.
78 78 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This demonstrates that when it comes to language learning, CLIL lessons pose great cognitive challenges for both teachers and students. But this challenge is highly beneficial, especially for students. As Brewster declares: “By being taught specific language skills and the associated language, learners are better equipped to deal with the complex academic and cognitive demands of learning school subjects in a foreign language” (2009, p. 1).
As Wolff (2013) states about the superiority of CLIL over other language approaches: “...(it) is attributed to the greater length of exposure to the foreign language. The more and the longer students use the foreign language, the better they learn it” (pp. 38-39).
Still, although in agreement with Wolff, it is important to keep in mind that the language pedagogic potential of CLIL does not only depend on the time exposure factor, but also on many other equally important factors such as:
- Authenticity relates both to content and interaction.
- Methodologically, CLIL is a strong tool for learning strategies and techniques.
- The topics presented (language and contents) are relevant for the learner.
The learning environment created by CLIL corresponds more to modern pedagogical principles than traditional learning environments do. The classroom is
79 79 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
a laboratory where learners and teachers work together on projects, where the different subjects are taught as a complex whole, and where autonomous learning is enhanced and learners work independently.
On the other hand, motivation and CLIL seem to go hand in hand, which leads us to ask the question, what fosters motivation in CLIL classrooms?
According to Coyle (2008):
- Teacher motivation through collaboration with other colleagues and cross- curricular opportunities teaching other subject areas.
- Teacher sense of involvement in curriculum development to meet the learners’ needs.
- Flexible non-prescriptive models which encourage context changes.
- CLIL pedagogic framework for guidance, reconceptualising practice and developing one’s professional practice.
- Motivated teachers develop motivated learners.
- CLIL teacher uses motivating strategies while teaching, making learning stimulating and enjoyable, building learners’ self-esteem and confidence.
80 80 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Hence, Dale and Tanner’s (2012) collection of benefits for CLIL learners have been chosen to conclude this section. Listed below are 12 benefits for CLIL learners (Figure 8):
- CLIL learners are motivated. - CLIL learners develop cognitively and their brains work harder. - CLIL learners develop communication skills. - CLIL learners make new personal meanings in another language. - CLIL learners’ language progresses more. - CLIL learners receive a lot of input and work effectively with that input. - CLIL learners interact meaningfully. - CLIL learners learn to speak and write. - CLIL learners develop intercultural awareness. - CLIL learners learn about the “culture” of a subject. - CLIL learners are prepared for studying in another language. - CLIL learners learn in different ways (pp. 11-13).
81 81 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
motivated.
earners are� l � . motivated. CLIL learners are
CLIL learners interact meaningfully.
write. CLIL CLIL�learners interact meaningfully
another language. learners develop communication skills.
. .
language progresses more. speak & Hence, Dale & Tanner (2012) CLIL learners’ benefits
CLIL awarness.
CLIL learners are motivated. learners’
meanings in harder harder benefits CLIL
CLIL learners interact meaningfully. learners learn to CLIL�learners develop communication skills.
their brains work harder.
personal CLIL learners develop communication skills. CLIL workwork work effectively with that imput.
learners’
CLIL learners’ languagelearners developprogresses cultural more.
and
CLIL CLIL
input
CLIL learners learn tobrains brains speak & write. CLIL�learners’�language progresses more. learners make new
lot of CLIL learners develop cultural awarness.
CLIL their their � learners develop cognitively &
82 82 CLIL learners make new personal meanings& & in another language. CLIL�learners learn to�speak &�write. CLIL Tanner (2012) CLIL learners develop cognitively & their brains work harder.
learners receive a
&
CLIL CLIL learners receive a lot of input and work effectively with that imput. Dale
ll t ti b Ad W W cognitively cognitively Ad CLIL�learners develop cultural�awarness. b Figure 8. Hence, Dale & Tanner (2012)Hence, CLIL learners’ benefits. ll t ti develop develop CLIL�learners make new�personal�meanings in�another language. learners learners � Dale & Tanner (2012) CLIL learners’ benefits. CLIL learners’ Tanner (2012) & 8. Dale Figure CLIL CLIL CLIL�learners receive a�lot of�input�and�work effectively with that imput.
Andrea�Wan y b Illustration Hence,�Dale�&�Tanner (2012)�CLIL�learners’�benefits y
82 82 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.5. The CLIL Teacher
So, bearing these 4 Cs in mind we could state that a CLIL teacher should have CLIL competences to create a CLIL course. CLIL courses cover language and content, therefore teachers should include both parts when planning the course.
In words of Dale and Tanner (2012):
As a CLIL teacher, rather than teaching a subject in another language –doing the same in another language as you do in your monolingual classes- we suggest teaching your subject through another language. By this, we mean that subject teachers pay attention to both language and content in their lessons, to help learners learn both language and content as they learn a school subject (p. 5).
Apart from working on language and content, a CLIL course should also work on learning skills, just as in any other course. In relation to language competences, the language level should be adjusted to the subject curriculum, and the subject difficulty should be adapted to the language curriculum. The course should work on all the learning skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing. Another important element to take into account in a CLIL course is the assessment. When assessing students, both aspects should be assessed in a balanced way: student progression in language and in content.
83 83 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A visual representation of “The Language Triptych” (Coyle, Hood & Marsh,
2010, p. 36) is very useful to enable teachers to sequence language and content objectives in their lessons, as content objectives and language objectives must be interconnected (Figure 9):
Language of learning
CLIL linguistic Progression
Language learning and language using
Language for learning Language through learning
Figure 9. “The Language Triptych” (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010, p. 36).
Language of learning: The teacher needs to reflect on the language needed for learners to access basic concepts and skills relating to the subject matter or topic.
Language for learning: This is related to the kind of language needed to work in a foreign language environment. Students need strategies to follow when working to use a foreign language effectively. If students are not able to understand and use language which enables them to learn, learning will not take place. Using
84 84 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
repertoires that include describing, evaluating, drawing conclusions, and such will help students carry out their tasks successfully.
Language through learning: This statement makes reference to the basic principle that active involvement of language and thinking is necessary for effective learning. Students capture language as it is needed during the learning processes.
Coyle, Hood and Marsh’s (2010) work “CLIL”, which has as its main aim to help and convince teachers of the relevance of and need for CLIL in the classrooms to teach and learn in a globalized, plurilingual and multicultural world, illustrates how teachers and planners can apply CLIL in their own classrooms. To do so, a six-stage implementation plan, which is summarized below, is detailed:
1) Vision: Discuss and decide on some CLIL goals.
2) Context: Situate the vision in their own context: their model for CLIL.
3) Unit Planning: Use the 4Cs to guide the planning of the units.
4) Preparation: Decide on the creation/adaptation of materials and resources.
5) Monitoring and Evaluating: Determine and verify learners’ progress and the effectiveness of classroom practice.
85 85 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
6) Reflection and Inquiry: Consider the best way to ensure future success and sustainability.
86 86 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
COYLE, HOOD & MARSH (2010) 6 Steps classroom CLIL implementation plan
1 VISION
Discuss & decide some CLIL goals. 2 CONTEXT Situate the vision in their own context: their model for CLIL. classroom practice. 3 UNIT PLANNING Use the 4Cs to guide the planning of the units. resources. sustainability.
4 PREPARATION Decide on the creation/adaptation of materials & resources.
5 MONITORING & EVALUATING
implementation plan Determine & verify learners progress & effectiveness of classroom practice.
effectiveness of their model for CLIL.
materials & the units.
6 REFLECTION & INQUIRY
Consider the best way to ensure future success & sustainability.
87 87 Figure 10. Coyle, Hood & Marsh (2010) 6 Steps classroom CLIL implementation plan. goals.
ensure future success & EVALUATING
& INQUIRY
their own context:
Steps classroom CLIL &
some CLIL 6
guide the planning of
verify learners progress & to
&
decide (2010)
on the creation/adaptation of
the 4Cs MARSH
Use Discuss & PREPARATION UNIT PLANNING CONTEXT Situate the vision in VISION Decide & MONITORING Determine REFLECTION Consider the best way to
Coyle, Hood Marsh& (2010) 6Steps classroomCLIL implementation plan. HOOD
4 1 3 2 5 6
COYLE, Figure 10. 10. Figure 87 87 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Being able to conduct a CLIL class requires that the teacher has developed several competences. Among many others, we have highlighted some of them below
(Bertaux, Coonan, Frigols-Martín & Mehisto, 2009):
- Being familiarized with the CLIL Program parameters (knowing what
CLIL is and what it is not).
- Having knowledge of CLIL experiences in other countries and/or
developed by other teachers.
- Contextualizing CLIL teaching to the school curriculum.
- Linking CLIL parameters and student’s/class needs.
- Designing and applying evaluation and assessment tools.
- Communicating using social registers.
- Adjusting social and academic registers of communication to different
audiences.
- Using appropriate subject specific terminology and structures.
- Using authentic language while conducting the class (explaining, giving
instructions, managing time, students, interaction, etc.).
88 88 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
- Using own oral language to teach.
- Adapting language curriculum to subject curriculum and vice versa.
- Adapting course outlines including language, content and learning skills.
- Designing formative and summative assessment tools.
- Selecting and adapting learning materials.
- Cooperating with the school community (parents, school managers,
authorities, etc.), etc.
The necessity of being able to develop all of these and other competences to become a CLIL teacher led to the creation of a conceptual tool for guiding the professional development of CLIL teachers by the European Council. This is why
The European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education was created by the
European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML) to promote excellence in language education.
All the competences described above are just a brief summary of those appearing in the European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education (Marsh,
Mehisto, Wolff & Frigols-Martín, 2011, pp. 16-27). This framework describes the
89 89 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Target Professional Competences that a CLIL teacher is expected to acquire or develop throughout the training program. These competences make reference to
Personal Reflexion, CLIL Fundamentals, Content and Language Awareness,
Methodology and Assessment, Research and Evaluation, Learning Resources and
Environments, Classroom Management and finally, CLIL Management.
Marsh, Marsland and Stenberg (2001), when defining CLIL, also offer some reasons to use CLIL in the classroom. As CLIL is about using languages to learn, it is like installing an ‘appetite to learn’ in students, giving them the opportunity to think about and develop how to communicate in general by themselves.
The European Platform has actively supported CLIL since its beginnings, giving information and advice on CLIL, giving general and financial support to schools, certifying the quality of CLIL in schools, co-operating with researchers, with teachers, and with teacher training centres, etc.
The expansion of CLIL in school education is a reality among most European countries. Teachers, policy makers and parents consider CLIL to be the key tool to help our students reach plurilinguism.
Since CLIL methodology and its exceptional results are spreading really quickly, even at an international level (EURYDICE, 2006), what we have to figure
90 90 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
out now is how to provide both high quality teacher training in CLIL and effective teaching materials.
As Jindra Divis (2010), General Director of the European Platform states in
CLIL Skills: “Faced with such a growth of CLIL education, one of the crucial challenges that we have to deal with is the provision of good pre- and in-service teacher training and effective teaching materials” (p. 11).
It may be helpful to keep Nunan’s (2004) graded activities, consisting of six graded language levels for the four macro skills, listening, speaking, reading and writing, in mind when choosing the language necessary to explain or work on subject area content, and carrying out content tasks and content activities with students.
But as we have seen, becoming a CLIL teacher is not an easy task, as many factors and competences must be developed. As compiled in 2006 in “Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe”, special initial training is necessary for CLIL teachers. Because of this, in half of all European countries, the authorities responsible for education provide courses, training modules, or even specialised qualifications geared specifically to CLIL teacher provision. These training possibilities are, in general, limited. Their features and duration vary widely from country to country. Some countries have cultural representation abroad in
91 91 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
bodies such as the British Council or cultural and cooperation centres in the embassies, which play an important part in initial teacher training in several countries in central Europe.
In the following section, the implementation of the CLIL approach in Spain is analyzed.
2.1.6. CLIL in Spain
To introduce the state of CLIL in Spain we will refer to the words of Coyle
(2010) in Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe (2010):
Spain is rapidly becoming one of the European leaders in CLIL practice and research. The richness of its cultural and linguistic diversity has led to a wide variety of CLIL policies and practices which provide us with many examples of CLIL in different stages of development that are applicable to contexts both within and beyond Spain (p. viii).
Due to the commitment to European policies aimed at fostering multilingualism and the growing awareness of the necessity to learn foreign languages, CLIL has experienced a great deal of development in Spain in the last decade.
92 92 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
There are several reasons that this development is happening, but here we are going to highlight just two of them. First, the Spanish territory is formed by 17 autonomous regions, plus the autonomous cities of Ceuta y Melilla. Most of them are monolingual but some of them are bilingual (the Basque Country, Catalonia, the Valencian Autonomous Community, and Galicia). In these bilingual autonomous regions, Spanish and the autonomous region language (Basque,
Catalonian, Valencian, and Galician) are co-official languages. This means that although the basic curricula for compulsory education are established nationwide by the education law in effect at any given time (at the present time, the Organic
Law on the Improvement of the Quality of Education (LOMCE)), each autonomous community has educational autonomy to adapt the curricula to its specific characteristics such as cultural, historical, geographic, and co-official language aspects. Because of this peculiar situation in bilingual autonomous regions, since the 1980s, plurilingual programs and teaching subject areas in the two co-official languages, one being the students’ mother tongue and the other their second language, is not something new. The differences in applying CLIL are twofold.
They lie in the language of instruction used, which is neither the mother tongue nor the second language, but English as a foreign language, and also in the methodological principles applied to teach subject areas in a language other than the students’ mother tongue, because students taking classes in their second language would follow an immersion program or a progressive incorporation
93 93 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
methodology. Because of this particular situation that exists in some Spanish autonomous regions, teaching subject areas in a language which is not the students’ mother tongue is something we have been doing for decades now.
Second, to achieve the European Union’s language policy aims, the Spanish and autonomous regions’ governments have developed language policies and a new education reform that promotes and enhances learning foreign languages for efficient communication. Hence, the new education reform Ley Orgánica 8/2013 de
9 de diciembre para la Mejora de la Calidad Educativa (Organic Law 8/2013 of
December 9 on the Improvement of the Quality of Education) and the plurilingual programs developed in Decreto 127/2012 (Decree 127/2012) of the Valencian
Autonomous Community legislation, contribute to achieve the desired goal. These two reasons have led to CLIL being supported, propagated, and consolidated in the last few years in Spain.
Dealing with co-official languages is not the only previous experience that
Spain has with teaching subject areas in students’ second languages. In addition to the cases of the autonomous regions with co-official languages, the Spanish
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports and the British Council signed the
MEC/British Council Agreement which has offered the Bilingual and Bicultural
Project in all the Spanish autonomous regions since 1996.
In Chapter one of CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher
94 94 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Training by Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe (2010), Lorenzo F. analyzes CLIL in the autonomous region of Andalusia in a CLIL school network of over 500 institutions in 2010. In Chapter two, Ruiz de Zarobe and Lasagabaster reference
70 schools applying CLIL in the autonomous region of the Basque Country. Navés and Victory, in Chapter three, cite 135 schools in Catalonia. In Chapters four and five, according to San Isidro, 200 schools in Galicia and 46 in La Rioja follow CLIL programs (Fernández-Fontecha). And the last autonomous community included in the work is Madrid, with around 200 CLIL schools. Linares and Dafouz consider
CLIL schools to be only those belonging to the MEC/British Council Agreement, but we must take into account that this research dates back to 2010, four years before this study (Figure 11).
95 95 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
70 500 13
Basque Country
Andalusia13 Catalonia 200 Galicia Catalonia CLIL schools in Spain Lasagabaster (2010)
Madrid La Rioja Galicia
200 46 200 96 96 46 70 Rioja
schools Spain
La Figure 11. CLIL schools in Spain. Lasagabaster (2010).
in Lasagabaster (2010) Basque Country CLIL CLIL schools inSpain. Lasagabaster (2010). Figure 11. 500 200 Madrid Andalusia
96 96 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
On the other hand, as Ruiz de Zarobe and Jiménez-Catalán (2009) compile in their work on evidence from CLIL research in Europe, there are many studies carried out in Spain that show the benefits of CLIL methodology over non-CLIL methodology. Some of this research shows that students that follow CLIL programs or subjects
… are considered to have a more intelligible foreign accent and also results show a significantly better performance on the cloze and receptive tests (higher level on receptive vocabulary and also a higher language level) over non-CLIL students. In these studies it is also pinpointed that non-CLIL students produce significantly more lexical transfer errors than CLIL students (p. XIII).
Changing the topic now to the profiles of the teachers that teach CLIL in
Spain, Navés-Nogués and Muñoz-Lahoz wrote about CLIL experiences in Spain back in 1999. The conclusions they drew at the time were that teachers with the
Primary Education Teacher Degree may not have the best profile for teaching CLIL subjects, given that their competence in the English language may not be sufficient. However, holding the English Teacher Degree would not qualify them to teach area subjects in Primary or Secondary Education, which means that teachers with good competence in the English language are not prepared to teach subject areas. However, these qualifications have changed with the implementation of the University Degree Reform in 1999 when Spain became a member of the European Higher Education Area. Hopefully, with the new
Preschool Education Teacher and Primary Education Teacher Undergraduate
97 97 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Programs, requiring a specialization in English Language, and the courses and resources provided by the public administrations, our future teachers will be more prepared to teach CLIL subjects.
Nowadays, with the goal of successfully implementing a plurilingual policy in schools, we can find Teacher Training Programs for CLIL, such as courses, seminars and workshops in many Spanish universities, Teacher Training Centers and educational institutions due to the LOMCE requirements.
These CLIL Teacher Training Programs are meant to provide teachers with the tools and resources necessary to guarantee their success. But the goal is extremely difficult to reach as CLIL teachers must have a dual profile. They must be qualified to teach specific content areas and, at the same time, not only fluent in the foreign language used as the means of instruction but also knowledgeable in the didactics of that foreign language in order to be able to develop strategies in class to help students acquire and use the foreign language correctly. This is the reason that training CLIL teachers is a remarkably ambitious goal; yet it is just that, ambitious, but not impossible. So, the question remains, what is really necessary to make the training of CLIL teachers a reality? In my opinion, it is mainly an economic issue. At the present time, more time must be devoted to those training courses with very well formed advisors and professors. It requires a great deal of time, effort, money and work for teachers to get trained in CLIL, so if the
98 98 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
government expects CLIL to be applied in all stages of education, more funds should be allocated to achieve this goal, and teachers and professors with individual or group initiatives to carry out these CLIL programs should receive recognition for their work.
2.1.7. CLIL in Higher Education
“All levels of an education system play an important role in providing the necessary skills to communicate effectively in several languages” (Fortanet-
Gómez, 2013, p. 23).
If we want to achieve a plurilingual Europe, each educational stage has to play its part in achieving it. By the time students reach university level, after having taken English courses for so many years, we have to make the most of the tools we have to promote and ensure that students are plurilingual by the time they finish their degrees. Because of this, using foreign languages as the mode of instruction for significant academic curricula would be an effective way of achieving plurilingual graduates.
99 99 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Although CLIL is often associated with Preschool, primary and secondary education, there is no reason why CLIL should be relegated to only the first stages of the education system. “On that account, during the conference held in Maastrich
(Nederland) in 2003 about CLIL in Higher Education, a new term was coined:
Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education (ILCHE)” (Fortanet-
Gómez, 2013, p. 41).
Apart from the Council of Europe’s expectations regarding plurilingual graduates and citizens, university students know we are living both in a globalized world and in the communication era. They are conscious of how important speaking several languages is when facing the working world after they graduate from college. For these reasons, there are a growing number of university students who are eager to improve their language competence.
Past experiences in teaching languages at university level have proved there is not enough time to provide all students with the language teaching they need. The time devoted to language teaching has been reduced even more by the new curricula designed after the Bologna Agreement, with more compact degrees and strong competition for teaching hours between departments (Fortanet-Gómez & Räisänen, 2008, in Fortanet-Gómez, 2013, p. 49).
Faced with this recent university reform, the CLIL approach provides the solution to this problem.
100 100 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Moreover, the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) has also presented new objectives for European universities:
- To attract national and international students. If universities offer CLIL courses in their curricula, more international students will be interested in those universities. - To promote the institution and enhance its profile. To measure the quality of a university by means of its strategy plans. - To develop partnerships and internships with local and foreign companies. - To develop cultural and economic collaboration with other countries’ institutions, promoting mobility for students and faculty members. - To promote academic, research and professional networking, which is essential for many university activities in the globalized world we live in. - To develop intercultural skills, which is the main aim of the EU (Räisänen, 2008, in Fortanet-Gómez, 2013, p. 49).
Another reason to promote the use of CLIL in higher education courses is that UNESCO has shown interest not only in the preservation of human rights, but also in the preservation of linguistic rights (Universal Declaration of Linguistic
Rights, 1996). In UNESCO 1998 we can see the role universities play in plurilingualism with its World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First
Century: Vision and Action. In Article 9, it makes reference to innovative educational approaches, critical thinking and creativity, and although not explicit to plurilingualism, deals with the acquisition of skills, competences and abilities for communication in plurilingual contexts in sections (b) and (c):
101 101 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
(b) Higher education institutions should educate students to become well informed and deeply motivated citizens, who can think critically, analyse problems of society, look for solutions to the problems of society, apply them and accept social responsibilities (p.24). (c) To achieve these goals, it may be necessary to recast curricula, using new and appropriate method, so as to go beyond cognitive mastery of disciplines. New pedagogical and didactical approaches should be accessible and promoted in order to facilitate the acquisition of skills, competences and abilities for communication, creative and critical analysis, independent thinking and team work in multicultural contexts, where creativity also involves combining traditional or local knowledge and know-how with advanced science and technology (pp. 24-25).
Article 15 titled Sharing knowledge and know-how across borders and continents deals specifically with plurilingualism and with supporting faculty and student exchange programs:
Sharing knowledge and know-how across borders and continents. (a) The principle of solidarity and true partnership among higher education institutions worldwide is crucial for education and training in all fields that encourage an understanding of global issues, the role of democratic governance and skilled human resources in their resolution, and the need for living together with different cultures and values. The practice of multilingualism, faculty and students exchange programmes and institutional linkage to promote intellectual and scientific co-operation should be an integral part of all higher education systems (pp. 27-28).
102 102 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Continuing with the role CLIL plays in university courses and classes, we must bear in mind that choosing a foreign language as a medium of instruction in our university classes can sometimes have negative repercussions on the academic success of the students who do not have sufficient previous knowledge in that foreign language to be able to understand and follow the lessons. Students can show difficulties when facing the academic discourse. This happens frequently when foreign language learners have never had the opportunity to use the language outside the classroom.
Focusing on “classroom discourse” we can mainly distinguish between teachers’ discourse and students’ discourse. Dalton-Puffer (2007), following Hatch
(1992), distinguishes six discourse types in the classroom discourse according to the task being carried out:
• whole class interaction
• group or pair work (student led)
• group work (teacher led)
• individual seat work
• student monologue
• teacher monologue
103 103 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
All of these types of discourse should be prepared by the teacher and acknowledged by the students in order for a CLIL course to be successful. We should not forget about adapting and preparing CLIL material to be used during the lessons, which will make it easier for students to understand the lessons and carry out the activities successfully.
On the other hand, the dissatisfaction with the state of English language learning in Spain (Vez, 2007) is not new, but since the development of the
European language policy, it is becoming a major problem within the Spanish education system. With each new educational reform, new measures such as beginning the teaching of a foreign language at a younger age have been put into practice seeking to combat this problem. However, even this measure does not seem to be sufficient to improve the Spanish students’ level of English.
Since students’ language skills in English at the end of their compulsory education are far below the desired level of competence, students are reluctant to take subjects taught in English at the university level (Lasagabaster, 2009).
One of the main reasons for not taking courses taught in English at the university level is the methodology used in these courses. Lasagabaster thought that motivation was a very important factor when deciding to take a course in
English, so he performed a study that measured the students’ motivation and
104 104 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
achievement in the four linguistic skills in English among both students following a
CLIL course and students taking English as a second language. Results from this study show that CLIL students appeared significantly more motivated to learn
English than the students taking ESL. Moreover, the CLIL students’ competence in
English was also significantly better than that of the EFL students, showing that a greater exposure to the foreign language brings out a clear improvement in language competence. Therefore, Lasabagaster (2011) concludes his study by finding that there is a strong relationship between the CLIL approach and motivation.
2.2. Problem Proposal
Faced with the task of implementing CLIL methodology in this university level course, I encountered two problems. The first problem derived from the English language level of the students taking the course and the second problem stemmed from difficulties that arose while applying CLIL in class. Both cases will be explained in this section.
105 105 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Students’ English language level:
The university environment (grading policies, professors, students, etc.) is currently undergoing important educational changes; changes that pursue the construction of the European Space for Higher Education. This process begins with the Sorbonne Declaration in 1998, and consolidates and broadens with the
Bologna Declaration in 1999. In this Declaration, the European Ministries of
Education urge the European Union member countries to develop and institute joint actions that allow for the creation of a common base for university studies within all European Union countries that will facilitate mobility for students and professionals among the member states.
In the new undergraduate programs created following the Bologna Plan directives, students must achieve the B1 level in a foreign language to be eligible to obtain their undergraduate degree, the B2 level to obtain their master’s degree, and the C1 level to obtain their doctorate.
When applying the Bologna Plan University Reform, among other means of accreditation at the University of Alicante, students are currently required to achieve at least the B1 level of the Common European Framework of Reference for Modern Languages in English in order to be eligible to obtain the Preschool
Education Teacher Undergraduate Degree. Moreover, this requirement might increase in the future.
106 106 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The Common European Framework of Reference for Modern Languages
(CEFR): Learning, Teaching, Assessment, was created by specialists from the forty one countries that made up the Council of Europe. This document offers a common framework of reference to develop curricula, courses, programs, materials and assessment in languages.
When students reach the B1 level (Independent user/Intermediate) in English, according to the CEFR, they “can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc., can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken, can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest, and can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans” (2002, p. 40).
Our students in the Preschool Education Teacher Undergraduate Program at the University of Alicante have to take the Didactics of the English Language in
Preschool Education course in their first year. Many are reticent to take a course in
English because they think they are incapable of passing it due to their English language level. Most of them can follow the classes with little difficulty and pass it, but it is true that they have a hard time trying to follow the oral explanations and
107 107 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
always ask for written support to complement the professor’s oral explanations as they do not trust their aural competence. They also face many difficulties when giving oral presentations, as they are not used to communicating orally in English and their oral competence is generally weak. They especially run into difficulties when it comes to pronunciation, since they have not had enough previous listening input. Because of this, they find it difficult to understand oral speech and they do not recognize the language orally, even though they have a good command of the written skill. This is why, as I mentioned before, students tend to incorrectly pronounce English phonetically. Therefore, we find that when students have not heard enough listening models to be able to recognize, understand and assimilate the oral language, they are consequently unable to produce the oral language in the correct manner. Trying to help them improve their oral competence in English by giving them enough listening and speaking practice is difficult, and it becomes even more difficult when besides improving the students’ English language level, they also have to acquire the course contents. Further on in this paper, we will see that many students taking this course, which is the only compulsory course in
English in the entire Preschool Education Program, only have an A1 level. This is the reality. And what is worse is that they may complete their studies without taking any other English courses, given that the other courses are elective and not compulsory.
108 108 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Difficulties found while applying CLIL in class:
As Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols (2008) predicted, several difficulties surfaced while implementing CLIL methodology in this course.
The first was grappling with the students’ misconceptions. One of the main difficulties was convincing students that they were capable of following, participating in, and passing a course taught in English. Keeping a positive attitude is paramount when dealing with challenging and innovating approaches. Many students came from an educational background where all the subjects were taught separately and the language of instruction was their mother tongue. The English language was only studied as a foreign language, and never put into practical use.
This personal experience influenced their perception and led them to develop a cynical and apprehensive attitude from the very beginning.
Also, while developing the course program I found I was completely on my own. I searched for methodology principles, CLIL features, ideas and guides to create the different course units and materials, but I missed having someone close by with whom I could share my knowledge, ideas, doubts, and concerns about how to properly apply CLIL in this course. This will probably change in the near future though as CLIL will likely be present in all of our schools and it will be easier to find
CLIL colleagues with whom to work.
109 109 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Preparing and creating materials for such a specific course has been a great deal of work due to the shortage of CLIL material in relation to the contents of this specific course. As we all know, teaching CLIL classes requires more preparation time as it requires making the conscious effort to set content, language and learning skills for each lesson and unit. Given that the course contents were so challenging for our students, a considerable amount of time was spent on developing and adapting resources.
The difficulties presented above that students in their first year of the Preschool
Education Teacher Undergraduate Program at the University of Alicante face when taking the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course can be summarized in two main points:
1.- Students have too low of a proficiency in English (especially in oral,
listening and speaking skills) to achieve the B1 level of the CEFR required to
graduate as a Preschool Education Teacher.
2.- The fact that students have to achieve the objectives and acquire the
contents of the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education
course that is taught in a foreign language.
These difficulties made me think about the best way to deal with this situation when teaching this course. I thought that the best way to achieve the objectives of the course, to help students acquire the course contents and improve their English
110 110 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
language level, was by using English as the language of instruction. This would give them the aural input and the oral practice that was so necessary for them, while they were simultaneously learning the course contents. Nevertheless, I always took into account that this is only a sixty hour course, and it might not be long enough for the students to be able to improve their English level as much as desired, but it would at least help them improve their oral skills for sure.
As I tried to find the best way to program my lessons for this course with the personal double aim of improving my students’ English proficiency and teaching them the course contents, I read a lot about the latest methodologies used to teach
English in North America and other European countries, especially those with populations that have a good knowledge of the English language, and one methodology in particular really stood out among the others. This methodology was
CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. This methodology has been used and is still used today in many countries with a strong knowledge of English as a second language (Canada, Holland, Denmark, etc.). Using this methodology, students learn English at the same time as they learn area contents. So I decided to find out as much information as possible about this methodology to use it to program this course.
The next issue was finding a way to measure if, or to what degree:
111 111 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.- The students in the Didactics of the English Language in
Preschool Education course improve their English language level
using CLIL.
2.- The students in the Didactics of the English Language in
Preschool Education course acquire the objectives and contents of
the course.
In order to be able to determine if their English language level had improved after taking the course, I looked for an English language test. Among all the tests I found and reviewed, DIALANG was the one I found to be most suitable to gather the information required to carry out this research, because it is an online diagnostic test which assesses the level of 14 European languages (Danish,
Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Icelandic, Irish, Italian,
Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish) according to the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages. This system assesses the levels for Listening, (indirect) Writing, Reading, Vocabulary and Grammar in each language. The results from each skill test are provided based on the six levels of the CEFR. The tests are taken online and the interface of the system is available in the 14 above mentioned languages. This test was taken twice by the students in this course, the first time at the beginning of the course, to ascertain their proficiency level in English before taking the course, and a second time at the end of the course to measure their proficiency level in English after taking the course.
112 112 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The results obtained in this second test were compared to the results obtained in the first test taken at the beginning of the course. This test is analyzed in depth later in this study.
Different assignments, presentations and tests were carried out during the course to assess the students’ knowledge about the course contents and the achievement of the course objectives in order to be able to gauge whether or not the students in the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course had acquired the objectives and contents of the course.
Apart from collecting relevant data, which helps us determine to what degree the CLIL methodology helped students improve their English level and assimilate the course contents, having students answer a questionnaire was also thought to be a helpful tool to find out the students’ opinion about the implementation of this methodology in our classes and to collect some personal information about the students as well. The results from this questionnaire are analyzed in depth further along in this study.
Having a low English proficiency is not a characteristic unique to the students in our course as illustrated in the EF EPI 2013 rankings. If we take a look at the results obtained by Spain in the English Proficiency Index carried out by Education
First in its third edition, we can see that we are in the 23rd position worldwide,
113 113 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
having improved one position from the previous ranking published two years earlier in 2011. According to these statistics, we have a “Moderate Proficiency”. The EF
EPI classifies a total of 60 countries, using test data from 750,000 adults who took their exams during 2012.
From the first General Education Reform Law of 1970 (Ley 14/1970, de 4 de agosto, General de Educación y Financiamiento de la Reforma Educativa), which was updated with the General Organisation of the Education System Act of 1990
(Ley Orgánica 1/1990, de 3 de octubre de 1990, de Ordenación General del
Sistema Educativo), and later with the Organic Law of Education 2/2006 (Ley
Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación), to the new education reform that was introduced in September of 2014, the Organic Law for the Improvement of
Educational Quality (Ley Orgánica para la Mejora de la Calidad Educativa), a lot of progress and many changes have been made in the teaching of foreign languages.
Learning English in Spanish schools is compulsory from the age of 4 years old according to the current education system (LOE in Preschool education and in 2nd,
4th and 6th grades of primary education, and LOMCE in 1st, 3rd and 5th grades of primary education). Four and five year old students attending Preschool receive between 30 and 60 minutes of English class per week, while students in primary school have 145 minutes of English class per week throughout the six years that make up the cycle of primary education. But regardless of the fact that students
114 114 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
begin learning English at such a young age and have so many hours of class a week over a period of eight years, at the end of primary school our students are still not competent when communicating in English, especially if we refer to oral communication.
International English tests show the assessment and learning objectives in different education systems. The TIMSS (2011) and PISA (2010) tests compare trends in international mathematics, science studies and reading skills among students around the world. EF EPI compares the English language level in adults around the word. If we take a look at the EF EPI 2011, Spain is ranked 24th in the
EF Levels of English with a “Low Proficiency” rate at word ranking. The only other close by countries that score lower than Spain are Russia and Turkey. Northern
European countries show a “Very High Proficiency” level in contrast with Spain. As explained previously, in the 2013 EF EPI ranking, Spain slightly improved its position.
According to this study’s ranking, many European countries have obtained the highest scores in English language in the world. But if we want our students to be able to communicate in English, it is not only important for them to start learning
English as soon as possible, but also for us to know how to effectively teach them
English.
115 115 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
For example, between 1984 and 2000 in Holland and Denmark, children started learning English at the age of 10 and 12 years old. Spain and Italy started at 8 and
11. Spain and Italy have the lowest levels of English proficiency in the European
Union even though they start teaching it at a younger age. This is an important lesson for politicians. Merely lowering the age that children begin to learn English does not automatically guarantee an increase in their English knowledge levels.
The quality of the teachers, the materials and didactic methods used, and the number of hours the students are exposed to English are much more important factors in determining what students learn (EF EPI Level of English, 2011, p.12).
Holland and Denmark hold the second and third positions in this study of the
English Proficiency Index on a global scale.
Students in the Preschool Education Teacher Undergraduate Program start university after having taken at least 12 years of English classes and despite this, they do not feel prepared to communicate in English at a basic or intermediate (B1) level, not to mention successfully taking a university content course taught in
English.
However, as Tang (1994) states in her research about Teacher Collaboration in
Integrating Language and Content "Research shows that ESL students may take up to seven or eight years (Collier & Cummins, 1984) to master a second language for
116 116 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
schooling" (p.100).
In the study How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency?
Hahta, Butler and Witt (2000), from Stanford University, state:
In two California districts that are considered the most successful in teaching English to LEP (Limited English Proficiency) students, oral proficiency takes 3 to 5 years to develop, and academic English proficiency can take 4 to 7 years. The data from the two school districts in Canada offer corroboration. Indeed, these estimates of the time it takes may be underestimates, because only students who remained in the same district since kindergarten were included (p. 15).
If we want to change the fact that our students are not able to communicate at a basic level after studying English for so many years, we cannot continue to teach children in the same way that we have been doing it up to now. If we want new results, we need new methods. This is clear given that we are one of the countries that begin teaching English to our students at a very young age, and yet our students obtain extremely low results. According to the results of several studies mentioned above, the number of years it should take a student to master a foreign language for schooling is seven (Cummins, 1984 & Hahta et al., 2000) while our students take twelve years of English language and do not master it even for basic communication.
117 117
3. OBJECTIVES
120
3. OBJECTIVES
3.1. Objectives
The main aim of this study is to determine the correlation that exists between the implementation of the Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL) methodology in the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool
Education course taught in the Preschool Education Teacher Undergraduate
Program and the improvement, in quantitative terms, of the English communicative competence in the undergraduates taking the course.
By the same token, this study also intends to discover which factors may influence and affect the improvement of the students’ English communicative competence during the teaching-learning process of the course contents when using English as the language of instruction.
This main aim can be broken down into the following specific objectives:
1- To assess undergraduates’ English level before taking the Didactics of the
English Language in Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool
Education Teacher Undergraduate Program, in which CLIL methodology
has been implemented.
2- To assess undergraduates’ English level after taking the Didactics of the
English Language in Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool
121 121 3. OBJECTIVES
Education Teacher Undergraduate Program, in which CLIL methodology
has been implemented.
3- To discover to what extent undergraduates’ English level has improved after
taking the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course
taught in the Preschool Education Teacher Undergraduate Program, in
which CLIL methodology has been implemented.
4- To ascertain if our undergraduates are capable of understanding and
acquiring the course contents when taking a course in English in which CLIL
methodology is used.
5- To determine to what extent undergraduates taking the Didactics of the
English Language in Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool
Education Teacher Undergraduate Program, in which CLIL methodology
has been implemented, have acquired the contents of the course.
6- To find out what our undergraduates’ experience with the English Language
is, what their personal characteristics are, and their opinion and posture
about taking courses in which CLIL methodology is used.
122 122 3. OBJECTIVES
7- To offer the educative community (undergraduates, professors,
departments, and educational administrations) findings so it can provide
better guidance in the development of the English communicative
competence in our undergraduates by analyzing the data obtained.
123 123 3. OBJECTIVES
facts
&
7 competence improve
Does CLIL really help undergraduates improve their English competence while learning Didacticsto of the English Language? undergratuates’
English
Offering data
1 2 3 6 4 5 6 7 posture language
CLIL
Language? &
Discoving
Assessing Comparing Assessing undergraduates’ Offering data & facts opinion & course undergraduates’ undergraduates’ undergraduates’ on English to improve English level before English level before acquisition of course undergratuates’
the course & after the5 course contents English competence contents Assessing the English Discoving undergraduates’
Assessing Ascertaining undergraduates’
undergraduates’ undergraduates’ acquisition of opinion & posture English level after ability to follow the on English language
the course course in English English & CLIL 124 follow the 124 4
Ascertaining
undergraduates’ course in Figure 12. Current study main aim & specific objectives.ability to 3 level before Current Current study specific objectives. main & aim
Comparing
after the course
undergraduates’ & English really help undergraduates improve their English
level after
Figure 12. 2 Assessing the course undergraduates’ English Does CLIL
competence while learning Didactics of 1 level before
Assessing the course undergraduates’ English
124 124 3. OBJECTIVES
3.2. Hypothesis
From the objectives stated above, the hypotheses we contemplate in the present study are as follows (Figure 13):
1- Undergraduates’ English level before taking the Didactics of the English
Language in Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool Education
Teacher Undergraduate Program, in which CLIL methodology has been
implemented, is significantly lower than after taking the course.
2- Undergraduates’ English level after taking the Didactics of the English
Language in Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool Education
Teacher Undergraduate Program, in which CLIL methodology has been
implemented, is significantly higher than before taking the course.
3- Undergraduates understand and acquire the course contents, even though
these contents are presented and taught in English, thanks to the
implementation of CLIL methodology.
4- Undergraduates’ English level before taking the course is highly varied
depending on each student’s educational background and their experience
with the foreign language.
125 125 3. OBJECTIVES
5- Undergraduates’ posture on taking courses in which CLIL methodology is
applied is significantly more positive after taking the course.
The variables intervening in this study are the undergraduates’ English language level (dependent variable) and CLIL methodology (independent variable).
126 126 3. OBJECTIVES
posture
improves
Study Hypotheses7 on CLIL implementation results after course Undergraduates’
on CLIL opinion &
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 levels before
highly varied.
Undergraduates’ are taking the course
Undergraduates’ Undergraduates UndergraduatesEnglish Undergraduates’ English level before improve their English acquire course opinion & posture taking the course is level by taking the contents presented on CLIL improves
lower. course.5 in English. after course English. in
acquire course
Undergraduates’ Undergraduates Undergraduates’
Undergraduatescontents presented are English level after English levels before capable of following taking the course is taking the course the course in English.
implementation results
higher. arefollowing highly varied.
4 127 127
Undergraduates are capable of Figure 13 .Study Hypothesis on CLIL implementationthe course in English. results. 3 tudy Hypothesis on CLIL implementation results. implementation CLIL on tudy Hypothesis course. S Undergraduates level by taking the improve their English 2 level after Study Hypotheses on CLIL Figure 13 .
higher. Undergraduates’ English taking the course is 1 level before
lower.
Undergraduates’ English taking the course is
127 127
128
4. METHODOLOGY
130
4. METHODOLOGY
The methodology used for this experimental research is a descriptive correlational study, in which the pretest-posttest design is applied. This methodology is going to allow us to determine, assess, and evaluate the efficacy of the implementation of the CLIL methodology in the Didactics of the English
Language in Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool Education
Teacher Undergraduate Program.
This descriptive correlational research allows us to ascertain to what extent the implementation of the CLIL methodology improves our undergraduates’ English language level, and if they are capable of understanding and acquiring the contents of the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course or not.
4.1. Participants and Context
This research was carried out at the University of Alicante in the Preschool
Education Teacher Undergraduate Program during the academic year 2011-2012.
The population sample for this study consisted of 19 volunteer students from a class of 50 undergraduate students taking the Didactics of the English Language in
131 131 4. METHODOLOGY
Preschool Education course in their first year of the Preschool Education Teacher
Undergraduate Program. It is necessary to highlight that all the volunteers are females and 64.7% (n = 11) are between the ages of 18 and 20, 23.5% (n = 4) are between the ages of 21 and 25, 5.9% (n = 1) are between the ages of 26 and 30, and 5.9% (n = 1) are between the ages of 31 and 40 (Figure 13), the average age being 21.15 years old (DT = 3.42 years old).
Population age
between 18‐20 between 21‐25 between 26‐30 between 31‐40
Figure 14. Percentage of the population according to age.
132 132 4. METHODOLOGY
The research was carried out in several different locations on the University of
Alicante campus. The pre-test and the post-test were administered in the computer lab located in the School of Education.
The treatment (Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course lectures in which CLIL methodology was applied) took place in the classroom assigned for teaching this course located in Lecture Room Building
Number 2 (Aulario 2). The questionnaire was also completed by the students in the same location.
The study lasted five months, the duration of the Didactics of the English
Language in Preschool Education course classes which were taught in English and adhered to the principles of CLIL methodology. From February to May of 2012, students attended a total of 30 two-hour sessions, held two days a week, plus one session before starting the course to take the pre-test and one additional session after the course ended to take the post-test.
The pre-test and post-test administered to the students to assess their English level according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages was the online diagnostic test DIALANG. The time needed to take the various parts that constitute the test was between two and a half and three hours, depending on each student’s working pace.
133 133 4. METHODOLOGY
The last part of the last session of the course was used to answer the questionnaire. The questionnaire was given by showing a PowerPoint
Presentation so all the students could read the same question and possible answers at the same time. Students had to record their answers on a multiple- choice answer sheet. Reading and answering the questionnaire took about ten minutes. The questionnaire was completed simultaneously during class time to prevent students from rushing to leave the class as soon as the questionnaire was handed in to the professor. This way, all students dedicated the same amount of time to reading and answering the questionnaire questions carefully.
4.2. Treatment
Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education as a CLIL subject
As we begin to discuss this point, we must remember the meaning of the abbreviation CLIL. As seen previously throughout this study, CLIL means Content and Language Integrated Learning. As Zurek (2012) states in his thesis: “Notice that the Content comes in the first place and it really indicates “content first”, because the curricular content leads language learning” (p. 35).
134 134 4. METHODOLOGY
Using English as the language of instruction while teaching didactics courses often results in learners getting lost due to the fact that they are faced with the usage of specific vocabulary related to the field of education for the first time when they attend our courses.
Professors that teach didactics courses should be aware of the language the students need to become familiar with so they can at least make an effort to follow the classes without getting lost. This way, the professors can teach them the appropriate language required to follow the lessons successfully. If professors teach this language to the students, then the students will be able to not only follow the classes successfully, but also continue to use the language correctly in the future.
During the development of the Didactics of the English language in
Preschool Education course, bilingual English-Spanish glossaries were provided to the students. These bilingual vocabulary lists were handed out with a dual aim. The first objective was to help students familiarize themselves with the specific vocabulary used in the course such as the vocabulary relating to foreign language teaching and learning (English language didactics).The second objective was to prevent students from having to continuously look up words in online dictionaries with their cell phones or in traditional dictionaries during the classroom lectures, or while working on different tasks in class or at home, which would be a waste of
135 135 4. METHODOLOGY
their valuable time.
A glossary (Annex VI) and a dictionary (Annex VII), which contained general vocabulary used in the field of education, were provided at the beginning of the course. Since this vocabulary is very specific, most students were not familiarized with it beforehand.
Then, a bilingual glossary was also provided for each unit of this course.
This course is divided into 5 units.
Students were also provided bilingual glossaries for specific activities when the professor thought that the assigned tasks may require them.
As previously described, Coyle’s (1999) CLIL principles have their rightful place in didactics as well:
The first C refers to content; we may say that the content of this didactics course includes:
- Usage of the foreign language: classroom language, necessary semantic
fields for teaching, basic linguistic components for Preschool Education,
etc.
- Foreign Languages Teaching Procedures used in Preschool Education:
136 136 4. METHODOLOGY
characteristics of preschool-aged children, early acquisition of second
languages, methods and approaches to teaching foreign languages,
Spanish Educational System, European legislation, English language
curriculum, literacy and pre-reading, assessment, selection and design of
materials, importance of context and practical activities for developing
listening, speaking, reading and writing skills.
- Use of games, rhymes and songs to teach English in Preschool
Education.
- Innovative methods and research in second languages.
To help students follow the lessons, a dossier which contained the theoretical part of the course contents was provided for them as well. An image of the theoretical contents outline from the dossier is shown below (Figure 15).
137 137 4. METHODOLOGY
Undergraduates’ Course Dossier Outline
138
138 Figure 15. Course Dossier Outline.
Course Outline.Dossier
Figure 15. 15. Figure
Outline Course Dossier Undergraduates’
138 138 4. METHODOLOGY
The second C refers to communication, which can be described as students using the target language to communicate during class time. This includes students’ thoughts, opinions, attitudes and discoveries related to lesson content.
Both speaking and writing are emphasized as students learn to use the language and use language to learn (Coyle, 2008).
Students engage in meaningful interaction, often working in groups, and produce authentic language. This way, they are not concentrating on memorizing grammar rules, and the teacher acts as their guide. Language is the key for communication and for learning. In CLIL lessons, students learn the language they need in order to be able to learn. Students learn to communicate in class, which goes far beyond the simple study of grammar.
As we will see further on in this study, for half of the undergraduates, this was the first time they had taken a course conducted in the English language. For the other half, it was the second time. This produced both fear and anxiety in them because most students did not feel they were capable of following the lessons and they worried about how their course grades would be affected. However, it was paramount that I teach this course in English, applying CLIL methodology. My first challenge was to calm them down, reassure them of their ability to succeed in the course, and show them that I believed in them even though they did not believe in themselves.
139 139 4. METHODOLOGY
The use of scaffolding was fundamental throughout the course to both support student comprehension of the contents and also help them understand the
English used during the lessons. From the middle to the end of the course, scaffolding was gradually reduced until the undergraduates could access the course contents autonomously without needing the professor’s support and help.
The use of scaffolding was also relevant in helping the undergraduates feel successful when completing the assignments, because this feeling of success motivated them to persevere and not give up.
Some examples of scaffolding I used during the course were:
- Trying to use simple language and structures.
- Trying to speak at a comprehensible speed for my students.
- Using as many visual aids as possible to support the explanations in my
lessons (digital board, graphic organizers, mind maps videos, etc.).
- Demonstrating tasks without giving them examples they could copy from.
- Using the bilingual course and unit glossaries.
- Explaining assignments and activities step by step.
- Providing support while they were working on the assignments by giving
them time to work on them in class, so that they could ask for my help
whenever they needed it.
- Building their confidence while they were doing activities.
- Showing them the relevance of learning how to do certain practical tasks
140 140 4. METHODOLOGY
(creating didactic units, designing annual programs, etc.).
- Encouraging them to try to guess language meaning without looking up
every single word they do not know in the glossary or dictionary. Since
students have been trained to use very accurate language in their English
classes in primary and secondary school, they tend to look up all the words
they do not know, given that they do not trust their own ability to infer
meaning.
In the 4Cs Framework, communication also calls for CLIL teachers and learners to use and develop language in the following ways:
- focus on language of learning,
- focus on language for learning, and
- focus on language through learning.
English was the language of instruction used in this didactics course, so throughout the course English became the language of learning. Students taking our course became familiarized with, acquired, and learned how to use specific
English terminology related to the field of education, which was brand new for them.
As the course was created following the CLIL methodology, both course content and language were taken into account. For this reason, as previously
141 141 4. METHODOLOGY
explained, students were provided with bilingual English-Spanish glossaries at the beginning of the course, at the beginning of each of the five units, and when the professor felt it was necessary for them to be able to carry out a specific task.
These glossaries were designed to help them learn the lexicon needed to fully understand the explanations presented by the professor throughout the course.
Nevertheless, as the course advanced, at times students developed problems understanding the meaning of certain words and expressions, or with the correct usage of certain grammar structures (in both oral and written language, although more frequently in oral language) which were resolved as they came up by reviewing the rules of language usage, specific grammar points, or correct pronunciation. If the problem was individual it was resolved individually, but if it was a general problem among most of the students, it was resolved in a group setting.
This is the way language of learning was addressed throughout the course. The first step involved planning when and what type of lexicon students would need, and the second step entailed resolving language usage problems as they arose.
The way language for learning was addressed throughout the course mainly involved following certain strategies in accordance with CLIL principles:
- Showing students what they were asked to do.
- Giving them examples of what they were asked to do.
- Using short, simple sentences and clear language to name the activities.
142 142 4. METHODOLOGY
- Trying to repeat a typology of activities so students become familiarized
with them and do not waste too much time trying to understand what
they are being asked to do.
Some of the language for learning that students needed to be able to carry out the various tasks is listed below:
- language for following the professor’s classroom lectures on the
theoretical course contents,
- language for inquiring about the theoretical course contents,
- language for discussing the theoretical course contents,
- language for carrying out activities relating to the theoretical course
contents,
- language for inquiring about activities relating to the theoretical course
contents,
- language for inquiring about the correction of activities relating to the
theoretical course contents,
- language for disagreeing on the correction of activities relating to the
theoretical course contents,
- language for understanding and explaining theoretical aspects on course
exams,
- language for preparing and giving the oral presentation,
- language for writing text for a storybook,
143 143 4. METHODOLOGY
- language for storytelling, and
- language for creating the theoretical framework and activities for a
Didactic Unit.
The way in which language through learning was addressed throughout this course can be explained by the following process. Since the course contents were presented lesson after lesson, students worked with them by developing all kinds of different tasks. During the development of these tasks, students practiced the English language without even noticing it because they were not focusing on language practice but on completing the different tasks. This gave them the input needed to start producing the language, or improving their language production. To carry out these different tasks, students were equipped with the necessary tools to work by themselves using English as the vehicular language in this didactics course. Some of the tools offered to students to help them use language autonomously, and which they used, were:
- Professor using feedback,
- Professor recycling undergraduates’ discussion skills,
- Undergraduates extending presentation skills,
- Developing online dictionaries skills. Some of the online dictionaries
undergraduates were provided with are (Figure 16):
144 144 4. METHODOLOGY
ONLINE DICTIONARIES http://www.wordreference.com/es/ http://es.slideshare.net/CarolinaAndreaVL/dictionary-of-language-teaching-and-applied- linguistics http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/es/translate/?gclid=Cj0KEQjw3M6oBRDnnIywo5i287ABE iQAXRm7SwDc65vX4q6vem3UYmK74fijOeMipx_66nizH6Nx2EsaArVf8P8HAQ http://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/diccionario/espanol-ingles/
Figure 16. Course Online Dictionaries List.
- Online web pages to practice grammar skills. Some of the online grammar
web pages undergraduates were provided with are (Figure 17):
ONLINE GRAMMAR WEB PAGES
http://www.englishpage.com/grammar/
http://www.edufind.com/english-grammar/english-grammar-guide/
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar
http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/inhalt_grammar.htm
https://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar
http://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/grammar.php#.VRQYuWM3PIU
Figure 17. Course Online Grammar Web Pages List. 145 145 4. METHODOLOGY
-Internet links. Some of the links undergraduates were provided with to create the storybook and design the didactic units are (Figure 18):
INTERNET LINKS http://www.sparklebox.co.uk/ http://www.everythingesl.net/inservices/pre_school_information_99051.php http://www.starfall.com/ http://www.english-4kids.com/ http://www.preschoolplaybook.com/2009/09/15-places-for-preschool-teachers- to.html https://es.pinterest.com/edytheburroughs/preschool-sites/ http://www.preschoolrainbow.org/resources.htm http://www.prekinders.com/ http://www.earlychildhoodteacher.org/teacher-tools/ https://www.bforball.com/ http://www.jumpstart.com/parents/games/preschool-games http://www.pre-kpages.com/esl/
Figure 18. Course Internet Links List. Figure 18.Course Internet Link List
146 146 4. METHODOLOGY
- Course bibliography (Annex VIII), and
-Other resources they could use to improve their English level such as language exchanges with American students at the University of Alicante.
This is how students in this course experienced language through learning.
The third C refers to cognition, making reference to the cognitive or thinking skills that challenge learners “to create new knowledge and develop new skills through reflection and engagement in higher-order as well as lower-order thinking”
(Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010, p. 54).
Cognitive Learning makes reference to the different processes that the mind performs, in an effective way, which makes learning possible. With effective cognitive processes, learning is easier and new information can be stored in the memory for a long time, whereas ineffective cognitive processes result in difficulties in learning.
Students were able to build their own understanding of the course content as opposed to memorizing transmitted knowledge from the professor. Although, due to the fact that at the beginning of the course they did not think they would be able to learn the course contents in a foreign language, they tried to memorize
147 147 4. METHODOLOGY
everything for the first exam. They soon came to the realization, however, that it was impossible to just memorize everything because there were too many contents and the material was taught in a foreign language they did not master. They also realized that they needed to master these contents in order to carry out the course tasks. Some of the skills they needed to be able to successfully carry out the course tasks were critical thinking, reasoning, evaluating, analyzing, comparing, summarizing, concluding, identifying, explaining, searching, selecting, composing, and presenting, to name a few. These types of cognitive processes that promote students developing their thinking skills were taken into account when developing the tasks used in the didactics course.
Below, Chart 1 shows some of the cognitive processes students were required to develop in order to successfully perform some of the most relevant tasks required in this course, including some which would make up their final grade
(Exams, Oral Presentation on Methods, Making storybook & Storytelling, Didactic
Unit Development & Didactic Unit Activities Oral Presentation):
148 148 4. METHODOLOGY
Tasks Cognitive Processes Following class explanations Recognizing language Reasoning on the contents explanations Clarifying meaning Conceptualizing Interpreting data Visualizing concepts Predicting Hypothesizing Drawing conclusions Questioning Expressing personal opinions Selecting relevant information Making connections… Doing the lesson activities Classifying Defining Comparing Naming Contrasting Labelling Observing Describing Sequencing Problem solving Interpreting data Assessing Justifying Explaining Developing Decision making Critical thinking… Correcting the lesson activities Reflecting Critically evaluating Peer correcting Self-correcting Questioning Communicating
149 149 4. METHODOLOGY
Responding Constructing arguments Making analogies Recommending… Taking Exams Reflecting Self-correcting Questioning Communicating Responding Recognizing language Reasoning on the contents explanations Clarifying meaning Conceptualizing Interpreting data Drawing conclusions Selecting relevant information Making connections Classifying Defining Naming Contrasting Labelling Observing Sequencing Problem solving Interpreting data Assessing Justifying Explaining Decision making Critical thinking… Making Storybook in groups Categorizing Drawing Prioritizing Describing Sequencing Identifying purpose Visualizing Making decisions
150 150 4. METHODOLOGY
Recommending Predicting Planning Producing Selecting relevant material Making connections Critical evaluating Self-correcting… Storytelling Monitoring Clarifying meaning Naming Explaining Suggesting Reasoning Communicating Making connections… Presenting designed activities to teach English Attributing Clarifying meaning Prioritizing Naming Describing Explaining Sequencing Suggesting Generating Reasoning Planning Producing Constructing arguments Selecting relevant material Responding Communicating Making decisions Self-correcting Making connections… Giving Oral Presentation on Methods in groups Categorizing Drawing Prioritizing Describing Sequencing Identifying purpose
151 151 4. METHODOLOGY
Visualizing Making decisions Recommending Predicting Planning Producing Selecting relevant material Making connections Critical evaluating Self-correcting… Learning, teaching & singing songs Classifying Communicating Sequencing Producing Selecting relevant material Clarifying meaning Identifying purpose Visualizing Explaining Reasoning… Chart 1. Course tasks & cognitive processes involved.
152 152 4. METHODOLOGY
In the Annex, some examples of the course tasks detailed above, which illustrate how certain tasks developed specific cognitive processes, can be found.
The sample tasks included in the Annex are:
- The exam the undergraduates took to check how well they were able to
assimilate a part of the course theoretical contents (Annex II),
- Instructions on making and presenting a storybook to teach
undergraduates how to make storybooks and use them for storytelling
(Annex IV),
- The Didactic Unit Correcting Guide used to assess the theoretical
framework and activities developed in the didactic unit created by the
undergraduates (Annex V).
Lastly, the fourth C refers to culture. Many cultural aspects of the English language were presented in the didactics course lessons. Undergraduates used these cultural contents in different ways; sometimes they learned about them, as they did not know them before they were presented in the course, sometimes they had to use them to create didactic plans or activities, and sometimes they just adapted them to make them more accessible to young English learners. Some of the cultural contents of the English speaking countries are listed next (Figure 19):
153 153 4. METHODOLOGY
ESC CULTURAL ASPECTS Festivals and traditions in English speaking countries. Authentic traditional games, etc. Literature from English speaking countries. Authentic cartoons. Nursery rhymes and traditional songs.
Figure 19. Course ESC Cultural Aspects.
Now, we are going to see how these cultural aspects were incorporated into some of the tasks the undergraduates had to carry out throughout the course.
First, we will look at the presence of the ESC cultural aspects in the creation of the individual didactic units for preschool-aged children:
- Festivals and traditions in English speaking countries. Undergraduates
had to learn how the most relevant ESC festivals are celebrated in order
to be able to create didactic units in which they had to introduce and
develop this cultural content to 4-and 5-year-old children. Seven of the
61 possible didactic units themes shown in Figure 20 were about ESC
festivals and traditions as can be seen in Figure 21.
154 154 4. METHODOLOGY
- Nursery rhymes and traditional songs. Undergraduates had 8 didactic
units in which to work on teaching young learners some of the most
popular ESC nursery rhymes and traditional songs. These songs appear
in Figure 21.
- Authentic cartoons. Dora the Explorer and Peppa Pig were two units
based on authentic ESC cartoons. Nevertheless, most units included
videos of the classic fairy tales explained below. This way, authentic
videos and cartoons of the stories were also used, even though the
storybooks were the main tool used to develop those Fairy Tales (Figure
21).
- Literature from English speaking countries. On the Didactics Units
Themes list shown below, units based on the ESC literature were used
the most, as young children love to listen to the same stories over and
over again. This makes them the ideal tools to use to teach English to
young learners. Sixteen out of the 61 units were about ESC literature
(Figure 21).
155 155 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 20. Didactic Units Themes. 156 156 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 21. Didactic Units Themes Categories.
157 157 4. METHODOLOGY
Second, we will take a look at the presence of ESC cultural aspects in the group task of making a storybook suitable for preschool-aged children.
To complete this task, the professor asked the undergraduates to decide on a theme for a storybook that they wanted to create to then be able to use for storytelling. They were free to choose a famous fairy tale, a nursery rhyme, or a contemporary story to make their storybook. They could either use paper or create it in digital format. The important aspects the students had to bear in mind while making the storybook were:
- Use big, colorful and motivating images or illustrations to go with the text
to help children understand the meaning of the text.
- Use clear and easy language, using short sentences. Use no more than
two sentences per page. They could also include speech bubbles.
- Be no longer that 8 -10 pages in length.
- This storybook will be used to perform the narrative of storytelling to the
rest of the class.
In the following figure (Figure 22), a summary of how Coyle’s 4Cs have been addressed throughout the course is provided and in the next section, we will examine in detail the online self-assessment tool used in this study to measure students’ English level before and after being exposed to the CLIL methodology.
158 158 4. METHODOLOGY
English Critical English Thinking Assessing teaching Explaining Investigation Resources to Innovation & teach English
Procedures to ESC Nursery Presenting Resources to
ESC Festivities Use of English Rhymes ESC cartoons teach English teach English
Assessing CONTENT . ESC Literature CULTURE English
COURSE: English teach English CONTENT Procedures to Didactics of
COGNITION teaching Storytelling Didactics English Language in Innovation & lexicon lexicon Pre‐school Education Searching Investigation Research articles Language of COMMUNICATION Critical
lexicon Analyzing COGNITION
learningEnglish Thinking
Songs of
Language Language
lexicon Reasoning for through Reasoning Explaining Use learning learning Grammar Online structures DU Language in Analyzing language dictionaries COURSE: Searching Presenting Course Didactics of school Education
Online‐ 159 bibliography Storytelling Activities Presenting Course 159
grammar Online English
Language language language Pre bibliography web pages dictionaries cartoons
ESC pages through learning Online
Figure 22. Application of Coyle’sLanguage 4Cs in the course. grammar Application of Coyle’s 4Cs in the 4Cs in the course Coyle’s of Application web
DU language CULTURE Festivities
Figure 22. 22. Figure ESC COMMUNICATION language Presenting for learning Language
language Activities lexicon Didactics Nursery of
Rhymes learning Language ESC Literature
ESC lexicon Language Songs lexicon articles lexicon Storytelling Storytelling Research Grammar structures 159 159
4. METHODOLOGY
4.3. Research Tools
To research how the use of the CLIL approach affects students’ English language level, undergraduates took a pre-test and a post-test to assess and be able to compare their English language level results before and after taking the
Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course, which was taught in English following the precepts of the CLIL approach.
The pre-test and post-test were completed by taking the online diagnostic test for languages evaluation, DIALANG. This software was created for the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages to inform users of their language level in 14 European languages according to the CEFRL levels. In order to be able to compare and contrast the results obtained by the undergraduates in the pre-test and the post-test, students recorded the results obtained for each of the items found in the five sections that assess the student’s different language abilities on an answer sheet that was provided.
Students also answered a short questionnaire containing questions regarding personal aspects such as gender, number of years studying a foreign language, languages spoken, their experience with the English language, and their opinion on taking courses in which CLIL methodology has been applied. All the aspects reflected on the questionnaire were considered to be relevant when it
160 160 4. METHODOLOGY
comes to improving students’ English level.
The grades students obtained in each of the assessable tasks assigned throughout the course were also collected and analyzed to determine to what degree undergraduates were able to understand and acquire the contents of the course taught in English using CLIL methodology.
4.3.1. Pre-test and Post-test: DIALANG Test
As previously explained, the online diagnostic test used to assess the students’
English level was DIALANG. The questions that appear in the pre-test and the post-test may vary as the software provides easier or more complex problems depending on whether the students’ responses are correct or not. If the students’ responses are better in the post-test than in the pre-test, the software would generate more questions tasks to answer, which would subsequently increase the language level.
Before going any further with the description of the online languages evaluation system DIALANG, this point offers a brief description of the usage of the
Information and Communication Technologies for languages evaluation and the usefulness of DIALANG as a diagnostic test in other studies.
161 161 4. METHODOLOGY
Nowadays the usage of computers and the ICTs to perform different language evaluations is becoming more frequent. One of the most recognized evaluations, based on a computer version of a test, is the Test of English as a Foreign
Language (TOEFL). Other tests used to assess the language level of the user can also be found in CD ROM format or on the Internet.
As Anderson (2000) states in his work, using the computer to carry out language level tests has both its advantages and drawbacks. When reviewing different computer-based language level tests, limitations can be found in the type of questions allowed. Frequently, they are multiple-choice test questions, or fill in the blanks, that require that the examinees perform the skills of looking for similarities or differences, and/or identifying synonyms and antonyms, to name a few. Although other types of questions would provide us with more information, they are not viable through computer assessment. Another problem that may arise is that the user does not have computer knowledge, or at least not enough to be able to complete the test using a computer. Therefore, the users taking the test must have, at the very least, some basic computer knowledge, which would allow them to take the tests without difficulty. One more drawback worthy of mentioning is how difficult it is to assess the user’s written expression, not to mention oral expression, when using computer-based language tests. Thus, it can be argued that when using computer-based language tests, the assessment of certain language skills is very limited.
162 162 4. METHODOLOGY
Despite the problems and limitations that these tests present, computerized tests can also be very useful and valuable. These tests offer obvious advantages over traditional paper-based tests, which is why their usage is improving and becoming more widespread every day. The fact that they do not have to be taken in a group, or with an administrator, or in a particular place or at a particular time, makes this type of test more accessible. Another advantage this type of test offers is the immediate correction of the test by the computer, which allows the users to get the results immediately after taking it, giving them instant feedback.
One of the features that computer tests present is their adaptability. In these computer graded tests, the user’s answers are assessed instantly, and once the computer has sufficient information due to the assessment of a certain number of answers, it can then select the next question based on the most appropriate level for the user. If the user answers the question correctly, the computer presents more difficult questions. If the user answers incorrectly, the computer presents easier questions, adapting the test’s level of difficulty to the user’s level of knowledge of the language. This adaptability makes computer-based language level tests more efficient, given that questions tailored to each user’s level tend to provide more precise information about the user’s true level of knowledge of the language.
Likewise, computer tests also offer pedagogic advantages. According to
163 163 4. METHODOLOGY
Anderson, “They avoid users being presented with frustratingly difficult or easy items” (2000, p. 596). They provide teachers with valuable information for language level diagnosis, and they also offer immediate feedback in the form of correct and wrong answers to students, either just after answering each test question, or at the end of the multiple questions that the test is composed of. This aspect of the computer tests is very positive as the rapidity in test correction helps students learn from their mistakes, which makes the process more meaningful. Oftentimes, in traditional assessments, by the time students receive the corrected test, they do not remember the answers given to each question.
Nowadays, self-directed learning and learning autonomy are highly valued concepts in any area curricula. Self-assessment, conducted in the right way, is very enriching, because during the process of self-assessment students continue to learn. Conducting self-assessment this way supports the students’ own learning process instead of just giving them a grade.
Continuing with the validity and usefulness of DIALANG as a diagnostic test, several studies on DIALANG itself are presented next.
In 2003, Luoma and Tarnamen, from the University of Jyväskalä, launched an investigation on the implementation of a self-assessment tool to assess writing.
Using this tool, the learner would write and assess their own writing level using
164 164 4. METHODOLOGY
given references. The technical and conceptual framework for the assessment tool was the DIALANG project.
During the investigation, Luoma and Tarnamen were interested in identifying both the problems that may arise from using the given references for self- assessment, and for the self-assessment process itself. The hardest part of creating a self-assessment tool was constructing the given references to help learners with self-assessment, as well as its development, given that the learners’ answers were also taken into account. The given references and the learners’ answers were assessed by a considerable number of evaluators, who then analyzed and selected the ones they were in agreement on. Once the references were chosen and identified, they were also codified, since in order to be used by the learners for self-assessment, they had to be theoretical, practical and user- oriented.
The answers given by the learners to written activities were assessed according to ten indicators of the European Council’s DIALANG scale, which consists of six levels divided into three categories with two sub-categories in each one.
The research comments were grouped into three assessment categories: comprehension, complexity, and accuracy.
165 165 4. METHODOLOGY
Comprehension appears in the three DIALANG levels: In the A levels it makes reference to the comprehension difficulties, in the B levels it is related to evident reading problems and finally, in the C levels, comprehension is a positive characteristic, related to reading sympathy. Accuracy is related to the number and type of mistakes made.
Oscarson (1999) included self-assessment in the DIALANG project thanks to a study about self-assessment that he himself had developed for the project. This research collected information about a study carried out at Concordia University by
Dandenault (1997), in which French speakers learning English were asked to assess their ability to speak using given references. The idea of using given references for learners’ self-assessment in the DIALANG project stems from this research.
Although Dandenault’s research focused on the use of self-assessment to assess speaking, they were based on a self-assessment tool used by Segalowitz
(1976) to select participants for a fluency investigation.
Even though Dandenault (1997) only used this method for speaking self- assessment, and not for writing, the DIALANG project has applied it to assess both skills.
166 166 4. METHODOLOGY
As Alderson (2006, p. vii) states in the acknowledgments of his book about the construction of the DIALANG language diagnostic test:
“DIALANG was a large and complex Project, and the efforts of many, many individuals were crucial to success.”
Contributions from people from many European countries were necessary to carry out this project: Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, Finland, France,
Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.
Recent studies (Alderson, 2000; Alderson & McIntyre, 2006; Beeckmans,
Eyckmans, Janssens, Dufranne & Van de Velde, 2001; Chapelle, 2006; Davies,
2003; González, 2009; Jang, 2009; Knoch, 2009 and Papageorgiou, 2010) have used the DIALANG diagnostic test as a tool to measure their subjects’ language level or their level in a particular language skill.
Also, Escudero and Wanrooij, in their 2010 research The effect of L1 orthography on non-native vowel perception, studied the influence of the non- native speakers’ mother language orthography in the perception of the second language’s vowels. In this research, the Spanish students’ oral comprehension level was determined by the DIALANG program’s oral comprehension test.
167 167 4. METHODOLOGY
4.3.1.1. What is DIALANG?
In 2001, the Council of Europe developed the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching and Assessment. From their work over more than 30 years prior to the creation of the CEFR, the following six levels constitute the CEFR: A1 and A2 describe the Basic User, B1 and B2 describe the
Independent User, and C1 and C2 describe the Competent User.
The University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES) has proficiency tests at five of the six levels of the CEFR scale. They are the Key
English Test (KET), the Preliminary English Test (PET), the First Certificate in
English (FCE), the Certificate of Advanced English (CAE), and the Certificate of
Proficiency in English (CPE).
To assess the level of 14 European languages based on the CEFR levels, a project was developed in 2000, funded and guaranteed by the European
Commission and the Directorate General for Education and Culture (SOCRATES
Program, LINGUA and Action D), and conducted and developed in more than 20
European academic institutions, such as Freie University in Berlin, Barcelona
University, Madrid Autonomous University, and Bruselas Libre University, among others.
168 168 4. METHODOLOGY
DIALANG is an on-line diagnostic system used to assess the level of 14
European languages (Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek,
Icelandic, Irish, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish) following the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. DIALANG was conceived for language students prepared to obtain diagnostic information about their command of a specified language.
This system assesses the level of listening, (indirect) writing, reading, vocabulary and grammar for each language. Results on each skill test are provided according to the six levels of the CEFR. The tests are administered via the Internet and the interface of the system is also available in these 14 languages. Examinees can choose the language in which they wish to receive the instructions, as well as the language and skill they wish to be tested on.
The individual items that make up each language skill test are designed to assess particular aspects of each skill. For example, when testing for reading, items test the ability to distinguish the main idea from detail, to make inferences, and to understand the text literally, among other aspects. The results of each aspect are reported separately so that the examinee can identify the mistakes that have been made.
When assessing foreign language proficiency in students, it is necessary to
169 169 4. METHODOLOGY
give teachers guidance so that they can help their students progress. If they do not understand how language develops, they can hardly help learners to develop such ability. DIALANG represents an opportunity to begin with diagnosis, helping to better understand the nature of foreign language proficiency. It gathers background information about the examinees such as what their mother tongue is and for how long they have been learning the foreign language. The test also includes the examinee’s self-assessment in reading, listening or writing, which can be compared with the examinee’s final results once the test is completed. This self- assessment is presented with statements in the form “I can...”. Eighteen statements appear when self-assessing each skill and the examinee only has to answer “yes” or “no” according to their ability to perform what is described in each statement.
This self-assessment provides the examinee with information about their language level as well as two types of feedback: the reasons behind the difference between their self-assessment and test performance, if any, and “Advisory feedback”, as it is called in DIALANG, which gives the examinees advice on how to improve their CEFR level.
DIALANG also offers a combination of self-assessment and external assessment. It provides assessment and the learner decides how to use it. What makes the DIALANG project so innovative is that it includes self-assessment in a
170 170 4. METHODOLOGY
computer-based language assessment program.
Vocabulary or Grammar is not tested in the examinee’s self-assessment because the CEFR itself does not contain any language-specific self-assessment statements.
Some who claim to know how foreign language develops, in grammatical or morphological aspects, have created scales that have been validated, but they only focus on narrow aspects that have nothing to do with proficiency development.
Others have developed scales of language proficiency that show how learners progress, but fail to show how real learners develop. Moreover, these scales lack validation.
Tests are the most common tool used to assess students. Assessment in foreign language teaching and learning is a standard practice for many different reasons: to discover what the learner already knows in order to plan the instruction accordingly, to place students into a certain language level, and to reward students with a certificate of completion after completing a particular level.
However, as frequent as assessment is used in language teaching, it is not so frequently used to give students feedback on their weak and strong points or to help them understand how to improve their language proficiency.
171 171 4. METHODOLOGY
In his book, Alderson (2006) says:
Literature on diagnostic testing in second and foreign languages is inadequate, contradictory and confused. No clear distinction is made between diagnostic tests and placement tests (...) It is argued that very few diagnostic tests of foreign language proficiency exist, and the reason for that may in part be because the very concepts of diagnosis and the nature of the foreign language proficiency are undeveloped, unproblematized and untheorized (p. 12).
The diagnostic test has a double objective: assessing students in their foreign language proficiency and helping students understand how to learn the foreign language by informing them of the skills they need to work on based on the results of the assessment.
There have been several frameworks of language proficiency developed in different countries such as the International Second Language Proficiency Ratings
(Wylie & Ingram, 1995/99) in Australia, the ACTFL scales (American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1983) in the United States, and the Canadian
Benchmarks (Pawlikowska-Smith, 2000), that attempt to describe language proficiency.
The current DIALANG Test Server started running on October 17, 2006 at
Lancaster University and is scheduled to continue to run with no break in service.
On average there are more than 500 successful sessions per day and, on some
172 172 4. METHODOLOGY
days, over 1,000.
4.3.1.2. Description of DIALANG System
Parts
The assessment procedure in DIALANG consists of the following phases which are explained in depth below:
a. Choosing the reception language of the test (among the 14
available).
b. Registering.
c. Choosing the language to be assessed (among the 14 available).
d. Vocabulary Placement Tests.
e. Choosing the language skill (written and oral comprehension, written
expression, vocabulary, structures).
f. Self-assessment (only in written and oral comprehension and in
written expression).
g. Student ability according to the system estimation.
h. Providing tests of a suitable difficulty level.
i. Feedback.
173 173 4. METHODOLOGY
Students begin the DIALANG assessment by selecting the language in which they would like to receive the instructions to complete the test among 14 European languages. Next, the students choose the target language to assess among the same 14 languages.
Once the language has been chosen, the students take a Vocabulary Placement
Test. The results from this test determine the student’s level according to the
CEFRL and guide the difficulty level (three levels) of the questions in each part of the test. There are three levels of difficulty from which the questions are chosen.
This Placement Test gives students feedback on the results obtained according to the CEFRL.
Alderson and Huhta (2005) explain:
The test of vocabulary was chosen because knowledge of words is integral to reading, listening and writing and because it is possible to administer an adequate number of vocabulary items in a short period of time, thus increasing the likelihood of more accurate prediction (p. 301).
After the Placement Test, the student proceeds to choose one of the five language skills tests in the following areas: listening, writing, reading, grammar, and vocabulary. When the students complete all five language skills tests, they obtain their DIALANG test results according to the following CEFRL levels (A1, A2,
B1, B2, C1, or C2).
174 174 4. METHODOLOGY
Next, each of the steps and tests that make up the DIALANG test are explained in detail.
A. Chosen Language to be Tested
Students choose the language they want to be tested on among the 14
European languages available.
B. Placement Test & Feedback
The Vocabulary Placement Test consists of 75 “words”, presented as verbs, of which 50 are real and 25 are made up. Without knowing how many of the words are real and how many are made up, the examinee has to recognize and identify, one by one, whether the words are real or made up.
Although this test is optional, taking it is highly recommended, because the results obtained are used to determine the examinee’s approximate language level and, together with the results from the next phase of the test, the Self-assessment, to adapt the difficulty level of the items to the user’s language level (Figure 23).
175 175 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 23. Screenshot of Placement Test ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium”).
Once the examinees complete the Vocabulary Placement Test, they are given immediate feedback (Figure 24) about their results rated into six categories ranging from “very low” to “indistinguishable from a native speaker”. The results obtained by the examinees on the Vocabulary Placement Test guide the difficulty level of the items found in the tests shown by the system and are used to inform students of the level they obtained according to the CEFRL.
If the examinees choose not to take the Vocabulary Placement Test, they are warned that they may find the test items to be either too easy or too difficult for their level.
176 176 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 24. Screenshot of Placement test feedback ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
C. Language Skills Tests &Language Self-Assessment
Once the students have taken the Vocabulary Placement Test, they take one of the five abilities tests (Figure 25), choosing the order of the tests as they wish: Listening, Reading, Writing, Vocabulary or Grammar. Before taking the
Listening, Reading and Writing tests, the students must take a Self-assessment
Test to ascertain the level they think they have, according to the CEFRL, in each of those three abilities.
177 177 4. METHODOLOGY
D. Figure 25. Screenshot of language skills tests ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
The Self-assessment Tests (Figure 26) consist of 18 statements expressed as abilities (I can…). The students read each one and indicate if they think they are able to carry out those tasks or not.
178 178 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 26. Screenshot of Self-assessment listening test ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
According to the CEFRL, there is a dual aim in the DIALANG system Self- assessment. The self-assessment specifications are used for two different reasons:
On one hand, self-assessment is considered an important activity in and of itself because it is thought to promote autonomous learning, giving students more control over their learning and improving their awareness of the learning process.
179 179 4. METHODOLOGY
On the other hand, the system uses the Vocabulary Placement Test and the
Self-assessment results to assess the student’s ability, and later propose a test with a difficulty level similar to the student’s ability.
The source of most of the DIALANG self-assessment scales was the
English version of the Reference Framework (Version 2, 1996). So, DIALANG is a direct application of the Framework with assessment purposes. More than 100 of the most specific, clear, and simple specifications were chosen from this source for reading comprehension, oral comprehension and written expression. Before deciding the final specifications composition, all the specifications were verified by
Dr. Brian North, creator of the Framework Specifications, and by a group of four experts in assessment and language teaching.
Grading the specifications to make a scale was based on a population of
304 persons who also took several tests in Finnish. The results were analyzed with the OPLM Program (Verhelst et al., 1985; Verhelst & Glass, 1995; in the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages). The results of the analysis were very good as more than 90 per cent of the specifications could be arranged, corresponding with the statistical model that was being used. The three self- assessment scales created through grading the specifications were very homogeneous, as shown in the high reliability indexes (Cronbach's alpha: 0,91 for reading comprehension, 0,93 for oral comprehension and 0,94 for written
180 180 4. METHODOLOGY
expression) in the Common European Framework of Reference for learning, teaching and assessing languages (n.d., pp. 217-221).
Once the Self-assessment has been completed, the students go on to answer the items found in the three abilities tests mentioned above, each consisting of 30 items in varied forms: multiple-choice, writing statements, questions with short answers and drop down menus. The system provides the students feedback on their answers, either directly after answering each item, or at the end of the linguistic skill test, depending on what the student prefers. When finishing each skill test, the system compares the level obtained during the student
Self-assessment and the level obtained in the correction of the test. If the student’s perceived level does not match the results obtained, the system advises students on how to improve their level following the CEFRL.
a. Listening
The examinee begins the Listening Test by taking the Self-assessment and then proceeds to answer the 30 items used to measure listening comprehension.
For this test, students are asked to read the question and the possible answers before clicking on the audio used in each item. Among the 30 items found on this test, there are different formats for responding:
181 181 4. METHODOLOGY
• 29 multiple-choice questions: 16 with three possible answers (Figure27), 12
with four possible answers, and one with five possible answers. In two of the
items, two questions have to be answered instead of just one.
• One item where the student has to fill in the blank with the most suitable
word for the gap in the sentence.
An example of a Listening Test item is shown below:
Figure 27. Screenshot of Listening Test item ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
182 182 4. METHODOLOGY
As explained before, the student can choose between receiving immediate feedback after answering each item (Figure 28) or receiving all of the feedback at the end of the test. If the student chooses to receive feedback immediately, the feedback is provided right after answering each item, allowing the student to identify the mistake made if the answer is not right. This option allows students to learn from their own mistakes given that if they only receive feedback at the end, students generally do not remember either the questions asked or the answers they gave and, therefore, cannot benefit from the option of learning from their mistakes.
183 183 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 28. Screenshot of immediate feedback in Listening Test item ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
Even if the student chooses to receive feedback immediately after
answering each item, at the end of the test the student also receives the final
feedback comments (Figure 29). This menu offers the student results and advice.
The results inform the students of the level they obtained on the Listening Test
(Figure 30), allow them to check their answers to the items (Figure 31), and
184 184 4. METHODOLOGY
provide feedback on the Level Test (Figure 32) and the student’s Self-assessment
(Figure 33). At the end, if the results obtained differ from the students’ Self-
assessment results, the program informs them of this to help them become aware
of their level. Likewise, it also gives them ideas on how they can improve their level.
Figure 29. Screenshot of Listening Test final feedback comments ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
185 185 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 30. Screenshot of Listening Test results ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
186 186 4. METHODOLOGY
In the following figure (Figure 31), we can observe that once the Listening Test
is completed, the system corrects the answers that the student gave and provides
final feedback on the skill test. It shows the right and wrong answers and the
aspect that each item assesses. The system assesses three aspects of listening
comprehension:
- Identifying the main idea (20 items).
- Making inferences (8 items).
- Listening in detail (2 items).
Figure 31. Screenshot of Listening Test items revision results ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
187 187 4. METHODOLOGY
Lastly, the system compares the level obtained by the students on the
Listening Self-assessment Test taken before the Listening Test (Figure 32), and the real level obtained after taking the test. If the real level differs from the Self- assessment level, the system gives the students advice on how to improve their level (Figures 33 & 34) according to the CEFRL (Figure 35).
188 188 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 32. Screenshot of Listening Test results compared with the Listening Self-assessment results ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
189 189 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 33. Screenshot of comments to understand why the Listening Self-assessment results do not match the Listening Test results ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
190 190 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 34. Screenshot about Self-assessments ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
191 191 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 35. CEFRL program advice screenshot ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
192 192 4. METHODOLOGY
b. Writing
Another test assesses the writing skill. As in the previous test, before taking the Writing Test, the student takes the Writing Self-assessment. Once again the
Self-assessment Test consists of 18 statements expressed as abilities (I can…).
The students read each statement and indicate whether they think they are capable of doing them or not. Once the Writing Self-assessment is completed, the system then gives them the Writing Test based on the CEFRL level obtained from the answers they gave on the Writing Self-assessment.
This test also consists of 30 varied items. The types of items are specified below:
• Two items where a text has to be read and then the correct answer
chosen among four possible answers from the drop down menu.
• Six items where the most suitable sentence has to be chosen for
the gap in a sentence.
• Five items where the most suitable word or group of words has to
be chosen for the gap in the sentence.
• Four items where a word with a different style has to be located in a
text.
• Two items where a grammatical error has to be identified in a text
and then the correct word has to be written to correct the mistake.
193 193 4. METHODOLOGY
• Six items where a gap has to be filled in a text using a word that
corresponds to the definition provided and begins with the letter
provided.
• Three items where the gaps of a text have to be filled with words
provided.
• One item where a sentence has to be filled with a group of words
using two of the words provided.
• One item where a word beginning with the letter provided has to be
used to fill in the gap.
After taking the Writing Test, the system corrects the students’ answers and informs them about the items answered correctly and incorrectly, and the aspect of the writing skill that each item assesses (Figure 36). The system assesses three aspects of the writing skill:
- Appropriacy (8 items).
- Text organization (9 items).
- Accuracy (13 items).
194 194 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 36. Screenshot of Writing Test feedback ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
Then, the system compares the level obtained by the student in the Writing
Self-assessment Test taken before the Writing Test, and the real level obtained after taking the test (Figure 37).
195 195 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 37. Screenshot of Writing Test results ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
If the real level differs from the Self-assessment level, the system gives the students advice on how to improve their level according to the CEFRL (Figure 38).
196 196 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 38. Screenshot of CEFRL levels ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
c. Reading
Reading is another of the language skills assessed. As in the previous test, before taking the Reading Test, the student takes the Reading Self-assessment.
Once again the Self-assessment Test consists of 18 statements expressed as abilities (I can…). The students read each statement and indicate whether they think they are capable of doing them or not. Once the Reading Self-assessment is completed, the system then gives them the Reading Test based on the CEFRL level obtained from the answers they gave on the Reading Self-assessment.
197 197 4. METHODOLOGY
This test also consists of 30 varied items. The types of items used in the
Reading Test are specified below:
• 20 items where a text is read and then the correct answer is chosen
among four or five options shown in the menu.
• One item where a question is chosen to fill in the gap in an
interview.
• Three items where the most suitable sentence among the
sentences provided is chosen to fill in a gap in a text.
• Four items where the most suitable title for the given sentence has
to be selected among the options provided.
• One item where the most suitable word for the gap has to be written
using a word derived from a word provided.
After taking the Reading Test, the system corrects the students’ answers and informs them about the items answered correctly and incorrectly, and the aspect of the reading skill that each item assesses (Figure 39). The system assesses three aspects of the reading skill:
- Inferencing (20 items).
- Identifying the main idea (9 items).
- Reading for detail (1 item).
198 198 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 39. Screenshot of Reading Test feedback ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
Then, the system compares the level obtained by the students in the Reading
Self-assessment Test taken before the Reading Test, and the real level obtained after taking the test. If the real level differs from the Self-assessment level, the system gives the students advice on how to improve their level according to the
CEFRL.
199 199 4. METHODOLOGY
d. Vocabulary
Vocabulary is another skill assessed by this system. For this test, students do not take a Self-assessment Test before the test.
Among the 30 items on found on this Vocabulary test, there are different formats for responding:
• Six items where the most suitable word is chosen to fill in the gap in
a sentence.
• Seven items where the most suitable word using the letter provided
is chosen to fill in the gap in a sentence.
• Five items in which incomplete words found in sentences have to be
completed.
• Two items where a word that corresponds to the definition provided
has to be chosen among four possible options.
• Three items where a synonym for the word provided has to be
chosen among four possible answers.
• One item where a word that corresponds to the definition provided
and begins with the letter provided has to be written.
• One item where a word beginning with the letter provided has to be
used to fill in the gap.
200 200 4. METHODOLOGY
• One item where the antonym of a word shown in capitals in a
sentence has to be written.
• One item where a word has to be written to fill in the gap in a
dialogue.
• Two items where the derivative of a word has to be written to fill in
the gap in a sentence.
• One item where a gap has to be filled in with a missing word.
After taking the Vocabulary Test, the system corrects the students’ answers and informs them about the items answered correctly and incorrectly, and the aspect of the vocabulary skill that each item assesses (Figure 40). The system assesses four aspects of the vocabulary skill:
- Word combination (6 items).
- Meaning (11 items).
- Words formation (7 items).
- Semantic relations (6 items).
201 201 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 40. Screenshot of Vocabulary Test feedback ("Copyright © DIALANG Consortium").
e. Structures
The last test is about Structures. For this test, students do not take a Self- assessment Test before the test. This test also consists of 30 different types of items. The questions used to assess structures are of diverse forms:
• 15 items where the most suitable word has to be chosen to fill in the gap in
a sentence:
202 202 4. METHODOLOGY
o among three possible options (12 items).
o among four possible options (two items).
o among five possible options (one item).
• Five items where the most suitable group of words has to be chosen to fill in
the gap in a sentence:
o among three possible options (two items).
o among four possible options (three items).
• Two items where a sentence has to be written using:
o three words provided (one item).
o six words provided (one item).
• Two items where a derivative of a word has to be written to fill in the gap in
a sentence.
• Two items where a verb in the correct tense has to be written to fill in the
gap in a sentence.
• One item where the irregular plural of a noun has to be written to fill in the
gap in a sentence.
• Two items where the most suitable group of words has to be written to fill in
the gap in a sentence.
• One item where a word has to be written to fill in the gap in a sentence.
203 203 4. METHODOLOGY
After taking the Grammar Test, the system corrects the students’ answers and informs them about the items answered correctly and incorrectly, and the aspect of the grammar skill that each item assesses (Figure 41). The system assesses six aspects of the grammar skill:
- Miscellaneous word grammar (five items).
- Parts of speech (five items).
- Pronouns (four items).
- Adjectives and adverbs (one item).
- Nouns (four items).
- Punctuation (two items).
204 204 4. METHODOLOGY
Figure 41. Screenshot of Grammar Test feedback ("Copyright © DIALANG").
Finally, after taking all the DIALANG skills tests, students are informed of their English level, according to the CEFR for languages, in each of the skills assessed. This information can be very useful when students plan to take an official English Level Exam in order to certify their language level, or even if they are just curious about their language level and want to improve it by following the advice given by the program.
205 205 4. METHODOLOGY
4.3.2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire was completed during the last part of the last session of the course. It was given simultaneously by means of a PowerPoint presentation that consisted of 16 slides, each containing one question and its possible answers, which were shown one at a time. Students were asked to write their answers to the
16 questions on an answer sheet that was provided. Having students complete the questionnaire in this manner ensured that they all had the same amount of time to answer each question and it also prevented anyone from rushing to finish as quickly as they could in order to be able to leave class as soon as possible.
The questionnaire consisted of 16 questions with several multiple-choice answers which are explained below (Annex I).
The first question inquired about the undergraduates’ age: How old are you?
They could choose among 5 possible options: between 18-20, between 21-25, between 26-30, between 31-40, and more than 40.
The second question deals with students’ gender: What gender are you? They had 2 options: male or female.
206 206 4. METHODOLOGY
Question number three asked about the languages they had studied: How many languages have you studied? They had five possible choices: 1, 2, 3, 4, and more than 4.
The forth question inquired about the number of languages spoken by the undergraduates: How many languages do you speak? The possible answers were:
1, 2, 3, 4, and more than 4.
The fifth question was about the number of years that the undergraduates have studied the English language: For how many years have you studied English? The possible answers were as follows: between 1-5, between 6-10, between 11-15, and more than 15.
Question number six asked about the undergraduates’ experience with the
English language and possible effort made to improve their communicative competence in English. The question was: How often do you watch programs, series or movies in their original English versions? The four possible answers were: usually, very often, sometimes and never.
The next question, number seven, inquired about the importance that the undergraduates give to being able to communicate in English. The question was:
How important is communicating in English for you? And the answers from which
207 207 4. METHODOLOGY
to choose were: very little, little, indifferent, important or a lot.
Question number eight was about the oral communication level they thought they had: What oral communication level (comprehension and expression) do you think you have in English? And the answers from which to choose were: very low, low, medium, high, or very high.
The ninth question was about the written communication level that the undergraduates thought they had. The question was: What written communication level (comprehension and expression) do you think you have in English? And the possible answers were: very low, low, medium, high or very high.
The following question, number ten, was about the number of courses they had taken where English was the language of instruction. It did not matter if the content of the course itself was linguistic or non-linguistic, just that the classes were carried out in English. The question was: How many courses have you taken in English previously? And the answers from which to choose were: none, 1, 2, 3 or more than 3.
Question eleven inquired about the students’ attendance in the course. The results of the pre-test and post-test would not be reliable in relation to English language improvement due to being exposed to CLIL methodology if any
208 208 4. METHODOLOGY
undergraduate did not attend the class regularly. The question was as follows: How often have you attended this course? And the possible answers were: 25% of the course, 50% of the course, 75% of the course and 100% of the course.
The next question was about the usage of the English language as a means of instruction during the course. CLIL methodology allows the teacher to use the students’ mother language to make clarifications or to resolve students’ doubts and misunderstandings, but the language of the class has to be the foreign language, in our case English. So question number twelve was: What percentage of this course has been taught in English? Students could answer with one of the following options: 25% of the course, 50% of the course, 75% of the course or
100% of the course.
Question number thirteen inquired about the students’ opinion on their English level improvement thanks to the methodology followed throughout the course
(CLIL). The question was: Do you think that taking this course in English has improved your English level? The provided answers for this question were: very little, little, indifferent, some and a lot.
As the contents of the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool
Education course were about teaching English at the preschool level, the following question made reference to their ability and self-confidence to teach English to
209 209 4. METHODOLOGY
preschool-aged children before taking the course. The question was: Did you feel capable to teach English to your future students before taking this course? And the possible answers from which to choose were: no, very little, yes, quite capable and very capable.
The following question was about their knowledge, ability and self-confidence to teach English to preschool-aged children after taking the Didactics of the English
Language in Preschool Education course. Question number fifteen was: Do you feel capable to teach English to your future students after taking this course? And the possible answers from which to choose were: no, very little, yes, quite capable and very capable.
Last but not least, question sixteen asked about the level of difficulty the undergraduates experienced when trying to understand, learn, work, and follow the classes in English. At the beginning of the course most students complained about how difficult it was for them to follow the lessons and complete the tasks
(presentations, activities, tests, etc.) in the foreign language, asserting that their
English level was so low it would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to understand the course content and the professor’s lectures, and even more difficult to give presentations in English throughout the duration of the class. In response to their protests, I explained to them that it was important for them to take this course in English for the following reasons:
210 210 4. METHODOLOGY
- First, this class will give them some real practice of what they will have to do
in the future when they become teachers and it will help them improve and
develop their English language level (mainly oral skills which were non-
existent in most students) , and
- Second, as a teacher, I cannot give lessons on how to teach English using
English as the language of instruction by doing it in just the opposite
manner, as children and adults learn from what they see and experience,
not from what they are told or instructed to do.
Therefore, the last question was: Has it been difficult to follow the course in
English? And the answers to this question were: no, very little, yes, quite difficult and very difficult.
The results of the students’ answers to this questionnaire are analyzed in point
“5.2 Questionnaire” in the Results section.
211 211 4. METHODOLOGY
4.3.3. Students’ Assessment
The students’ assessment in this course was continuous and required them to perform different and varied tasks. The assessable tasks are listed below:
• Multiple-choice tests.
• Oral Presentation of theoretical content presented in the course.
• Making a storybook and reading it to the class.
• Preparing a Didactic Unit following the professor’s guidelines.
• Oral Presentation of one session of the Didactic Unit they prepared.
In the following section, each part of the students’ assessment is explained in detail:
• Multiple-choice tests: Students took two tests throughout the course to
evaluate their understanding of the theoretical content presented in the course.
One was taken at the half-way point, and another one at the end of the course.
Both tests were multiple-choice tests (sample test included in Annex II).
• Oral Presentation of theoretical content presented in the course: Some of the
theoretical content was explained by the professor using mind maps, videos,
stories, real objects, body language with pantomime, visual support of many
types, PowerPoint presentations and so on. But some of the other theoretical
212 212 4. METHODOLOGY
content was researched by students in groups and later presented to the rest of the class following CLIL guidelines (Course contents group presentation grading chart included in Annex III).
• Making a storybook and reading it to the class: One of the assignments in the course was to create some useful, visual, fun, and meaningful materials containing CLIL features to teach English to preschoolers. In groups, students had to make a big storybook, using their preferred type of support (paper or digital). For this task they had to choose from using a traditional story or fairytale, or creating a story of their own. They had to write the text using age- appropriate language for preschoolers and create illustrations to go with the text. Finally the group had to read the story to the class using the storybook they made (Making storybook and storybook presentation instructions included in Annex IV).
• Making a Didactic Unit following the professor’s guidelines: After explaining to the students how to create didactic units to teach the English language to preschoolers, and giving them examples, references, bibliography and support, students had to individually create a didactic unit for a Preschool course (3, 4 or
5 year old kids). This didactic unit had to be developed in two parts with the first part consisting of the theoretical parts of the unit (aims, contents, assessment, etc.) and the second part containing the development of the activities organized
213 213 4. METHODOLOGY
in five sessions. Once the didactic unit was created, students had to choose
one of the five sessions of their unit to present to the rest of the class. Then,
students were required to prepare the materials needed to carry out the
activities of the session they chose to present to the class during their didactic
unit session presentation (Correcting guide used to assess undergraduates’
didactic units included in Annex V).
• Oral Presentation of one session of the Didactic Unit created by the student:
Once students had chosen which session of their didactic unit they preferred to
present and had prepared the materials needed to carry out the session
activities with the class, it was time to start with their presentations. In turns,
each student presented their session while the rest of the class carried out the
proposed activities for each presentation.
The grades students obtained in each of the assessable parts of the course are analyzed in the following section of this study.
214 214 4. METHODOLOGY
4.4. Analysis
For the research design, an experimental design with pretest - posttest measures was used with a single group, typical of situations in which the research is conducted in real contexts with natural groups, with the intention of maintaining the reality of the classroom and its specific conditions.
Once the students’ assessments were completed, statistical analysis of the data that corresponds to the posed hypotheses was performed with IBM SPSS
Statistics 19 applications package.
215 215
5. RESULTS
218
5. RESULTS
The results obtained in each of the parts of this study used to collect data that could illustrate to what extent using CLIL methodology would help students taking the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course improve their communicative competence in English are gathered in the following sections.
IBM SPSS Statistics 19 applications package was used to perform the statistical analysis to obtain the appropriate descriptive statistics for the main variables of the research, calculating the standard deviation, frequency, minimum and maximum scores and percentages of data.
The correlation coefficient was also calculated by using Pearson's test to determine the degree of intensity of relationship between variables.
5.1. DIALANG Test
Comparing pre-test and post-test results
At this point in the study, we are going to compare the students’ pre-test and post-test results, skill by skill, to see if any noticeable improvements have been made.
219 219 5. RESULTS
First, we will look at the students’ Self-Assessment Test results. If we take a look at the pre-test and post-test comparative results chart (Chart 2), we can see that three of the fifteen students improved their score on this test.
Second, when we look at the Listening Test results (Chart 2), we can observe that only one student improved her score in this skill. It is remarkable that only one student showed improvement in this skill because one of the main objectives for this course was to help students improve their listening comprehension which is why the course was designed to be taught in English. This lack of success may be due to the length of the course. The fact that the duration of the course is only 60 hours long may be an important factor because students may need more exposure to the language in order to be able to improve their listening comprehension results in this test.
If we take a detailed look at the three aspects of listening comprehension that this test assesses, we can observe that the student improved her skills in
Identifying the main idea, but not in Inferring or Listening in detail.
We must also take into account that most of the students only have an A1 listening level, which is extremely low for students who have taken so many years of English classes. The rest of the students, about 10%, present an A2 or B1 level in Listening (Figure 42).
220 220 5. RESULTS
90
80
70
60
50
40 Pre-Test Post-Test
30
20
10
0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1C2
Figure 42. Students’ pre-test and post-test Listening level.
And third, if we analyze the Writing Level Test results (Chart 2), we find that two students showed improvement in this skill after completing the course.
Taking a closer look at these two students’ results, we can see that both students improved their scores in all three aspects of writing: Appropiacy, Textual organization, and Accuracy.
In general, the students’ level in the Writing section is a little higher than their level in the Listening section (Chart 2). Although most students are still at an A1 level (46.6%), the percentage of students with either a B1 or a B2 level increases to around 25% respectively.
221 221 5. RESULTS
70
60
50
40
30 Pre-Test Post-Test
20
10
0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Figure 43. Students’ pre-test and post-test Writing level.
Continuing with the analysis of the test results, in the next three skills assessed, we find that the number of students who have increased their scores increases slightly from the two previous skills: six students improve their scores in Reading, four in Vocabulary, and five in Grammar Structures.
Analyzing one by one, we find that the six students increased their scores in all aspects of the reading skill (Chart 2). They improved all their results in Inferencing,
Identifying the main idea, Reading for detail, and Reading in general. These improvements are mainly made by those students passing from the A1 level to the
A2 level in Listening (five out of the six students).
222 222 5. RESULTS
70
60
50
40
30 Pre-Test Post-Test
20
10
0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Figure 44. Students’ pre-test and post-test Reading level.
When we examine the reading skill results more closely (Figure 44), we discover that the students’ improvement in these skills from the pre-test to the post- test is outstanding. Before taking the course, more than 65%of the students tested at an A1 level in the Reading section, while 26% tested at an A2 level, and only 6% obtained a B2 level. The results of the post-tests how that only 33% remained at an
A1 level, while the majority tested at an A2 level (53%), and about 10% reached the B1 or B2 levels.
Next we will focus on the assessment of the vocabulary skill. As stated before, four students improved their results in this skill (Chart 2). The students that
223 223 5. RESULTS
improved their results in the four specific aspects of the vocabulary skill assessed in this test (Word combination, Meaning, Word formation, and Semantic relations), did so in different aspects. However, the aspects in which students achieved better results, and in which all four students showed improvement were Word combination and Semantic relations.
In relation to the most predominant level in this vocabulary skill, we observe that it increases a little bit as more than 42% of the students obtain a B1 level, followed by 35% that obtain an A2 level, and around 21% have B2 level (Figure
45). The results of this skill test are a great success given that although only one student tested at an A1 level in the pre-test, no students tested at an A1 level in the post-test.
224 224 5. RESULTS
70
60
50
40
30 Pre-Test Post-Test
20
10
0 A1 A2B1B2 C1C2
Figure 45. Students’ pre-test and post-test Vocabulary level.
Examining the results for the last skill assessment, Grammar Structures, we find that this time five students improved their scores in this part of the test (Chart
2). Taking a closer look at the different aspects assessed in this skill
(Miscellaneous word grammar, Parts of Speech, Pronouns, Adjectives and adverbs, Nouns, Punctuation, Numerals, Sentences, and Verbs) it can be observed that the aspect in which most studeents showed improvement was Verbs, followed by Miscellaneous word grammar, Pronouns, and Numerals. With the exception of the Sentences aspect, in which no students improved, students showed some improvement in all the other aspects as well, but less notably (Parts
225 225 5. RESULTS
of Speech, Adjectives and adverbs, Nouns, and Punctuation). We can also clearly see that students scored the best on the Grammar Structures test given that more than 66% of the students reach the B1 level. Also about 6% reach a B2 level and
20% test at an A2 level (Figure 46).
50
45
40
35
30
25 Pre-Test Post-Test 20
15
10
5
0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Figure 46. Students’ pre-test and post-test Grammar Structures level.
Although the DIALANG test does not give a final CEFRL level for the language assessment as a whole, but instead assesses each skill separately,
Chart 2 shows the summary of the students’ levels obtained in each skill in the column DIALANG Test Level. Although none of the students improved their level
226 226 5. RESULTS
enough to pass from one DIALANG test level to the next, 11 of the 15 students did improve the results they obtained in one or more of the individual skills assessments. However, in order to affirm that they had actually improved one level according to the CEFRL, they would have had to achieve that level in all of the individual skills assessments, and this did not occur.
Of the 11 students that showed improvement, five improved their level in one of the skill assessments, five improved their level in two of the skill assessments, and one student improved her level in three of the skill assessments.
The skill that registered the most improvements was Reading with six students, followed by Grammar Structures in which five students improved. The skill that registered the third highest improvement was Vocabulary, in which four students improved their level, while Listening and Writing registered the lowest number of improvements, one for Listening and two for Writing.
If we stop for a moment and try to find an explanation for why students show more improvement in certain skills than in others, it is undoubtedly due to the fact that the skills that the students improved the most in were those in which they had received more training during their compulsory and post-compulsory education
(Reading, Vocabulary and Grammar Structures). Likewise, students did not show much improvement in those skills in which they had received less training during their compulsory and post-compulsory education (Listening and Writing).
227 227 5. RESULTS
Traditionally in Spain, English classes have been taught using the students’ mother tongue instead of English. Therefore, students have not been given enough opportunities to receive the aural input that serves as the basis for language acquisition, and it is necessary for the complete and successful development of the other linguistic skills.
It is an acknowledged fact that, during their compulsory and post- compulsory education, our students work mainly on mastering written skills, and in most cases they end up just memorizing answers in order to pass exams, without ever really putting into practice what they learn as opportunities for using the language freely in the classroom (neither written nor oral) do not abound.
I suspect that the students actually knew much more English than the pre- test results showed, but they did not know how to use it, as it was non-significant knowledge for them stored in the back of their memory. After taking the course and getting feedback on language elements they were supposed to know, and experiencing the chance to practice the language freely by producing it themselves
(both oral and written skills), students were able to assign meaning to the considerable knowledge stored in their operative memory, gaining the ability to understand significant concepts which were previously only memorized.
228 228 5. RESULTS
The information that DIALANG does not provide learners is if improvements have been achieved within the same level. In many cases where students present the same level in the pre-test and post-test, it does not necessarily mean that students have not improved their level at all, but just that the advancement within the same level was not significant enough to pass to the next level.
Figure 47 illustrates how much the students improved their level before and after taking the course as in the pre-test 11% reached an A1 level and only 6% remained at this level in the post-test. We can observe that 39% of the students had an A2 level in the pre-test and that this was reduced to 26% in the post-test results. The students’ advancement is notable in the B1 and the B2 levels: 50% of the students attain a B1 level in the pre-test while 60% achieved it in the post-test.
Furthermore, none of the students tested at the B2 level in the pre-test, while 6% of the population sample achieved this result in the post-test.
229 229 5. RESULTS
60
50
40
30
20 Pre-Test Post-Test
10
0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Figure 47. Students’ pre-test and post-test level improvement.
From the results obtained in this study, we can state that in order to not only improve their English level in the Listening and Writing skills, butt to also be able to notice that improvement, our undergraduates would need to practice these skills for a longer period of time (longer than the time provided during the 60-hour course).
230 230 5. RESULTS Students Students Tests Self- Assessment Listening Writing Reading Vocabulary Grammar Structures DIALANG Test Level
1 A2/B1 A1 A1 A1 A1/A2 A1 A1 2 A1 A1 A1 A1 A2/B1 A2/B1 A1 3 A2 A1 A1 A1/A2 B1 A2/B1 A1 4 A2 A2 B1 A2/B1 B2 B1 A1 5 A2 A1 A1 A1 A2 A2 A1 6 A2/B1 A1 A1 A1 A2 A2/B1 A1 7 B1 A1 A2 A1/A2 A2/B1 A2/B1 A1 8 9 B1 A1 A1/A2 A2 A2 A2 A1 10 B1/B2 A1 A1 A1/A2 A2 A2/B1 A1 11 12 B2 A1 A2/B1 A1/A2 B1 A2 A1 13 B2 A1 A2 A2 B1 B1 A1 14 B2 A2 A2 A1/A2 B1/B2 B1 A2 15 B2 A2 B1 A1 B2 B1 A1 16 B2 A2/B1 B1 A2 B1 B1 A2 17 18 19 C1 B1 B1 B2 B2 B1 20 21
Chart 2. Pre-test & post-test comparative results.
231 231 5. RESULTS
Grades in blue did not change from the pre-test to the post-test; same results.
Grades in red belong to the pre-test result.
Grades in green belong to the post-test result.
In Chart 2, empty boxes indicate the mortality suffered during the development of this study. Six students took the pre-test, but did not take the post- test, so their results cannot be compared.
232 232 5. RESULTS
5.2. Questionnaire
The reliability of the questionnaire was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient, which reached the value of 0.611, indicating that the reliability is moderate.
Through analysis of the students’ questionnaire answers, the following data was obtained:
- 100% of the research population is female.
- 64.7% (n = 11) are between 18-20 years old, 23.5% (n = 4) are between 21-
25 years old, 5.9% (n = 1) are between 26-30 years old and 5.9% (n = 1)
are between 31-40 years old (Figure 13), the average age being 21.15
years old (DT = 3.42 years old) (Figure 29).
Age 70
60
50
40
30 Age %
20
10
0 18‐20 21‐25 26‐30 31‐40
Figure 48. Subjects’ age.
233 233 5. RESULTS
In Chart 3, the frequencies and percentages corresponding to the languages studied and spoken by the population subjects, the years they have studied the
English language, and the frequency in which they watch TV programs, series and movies in their original version are found.
Languages studied N % 1 0 0.0 2 3 17.6 3 9 52.9 4 5 29.4 Languages spoken n % 1 1 5.9 2 12 70.6 3 3 17.6 4 1 5.9 Years studying English n % 1 to 5 1 5.9 6 to 10 5 29.4 11 to 15 7 41.2 > 16 4 23.5 Frequency of watching programs in English N % Usually 1 5.9 Very often 3 17.6 Sometimes 10 58.8 Never 3 17.6 Importance of English communication N % Very little 0 0.0 Little 0 0.0 Indifference 0 0.0 Importance 3 17.6 A lot 14 82.4 Chart 3. Languages and English language.
234 234 5. RESULTS
The results indicate that 17.6% (n = 3) of the subjects have studied two languages, although most of them (52.9%, n = 9) have studied three languages.
Lastly, 29.4 % (n = 5) have studied four languages (Figure 49). The average number of languages studied is 3.12 (DT = 0.68).
Languages Studied 60
50
40
30 Studied languages %
20
10
0 1234
Figure 49. Languages studied.
Regarding the number of languages spoken, 5.9% (n = 1) speak one language (Spanish), 70.6% (n = 12) speak two languages (Spanish and
Valencian), 17.6% (n = 3) speak three languages (Spanish, Valencian and a foreign language) and only one subject (5.9%) speaks more than four languages
235 235 5. RESULTS
(Spanish, Valencian, English and a foreign language). These results can be seen in Figure 50.
Languages Spoken 80
70
60
50
40 Spoken languages % 30
20
10
0 1234
Figure 50. Languages spoken.
The average number of years that the subjects in the population have studied English is 12.12 (DT = 4.28 years). Most have studied the language between 11 and 15 years (41.2%, n = 7), and 23.5% (n = 4) have studied it for more than 16 years. 29.4% (n = 5) have studied English between six and ten years and only one subject (5.9%) has studied between one and five years (Figure 51).
236 236 5. RESULTS
These results are shocking when comparing them to the students’ English level according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
The average number of years that our students have studied English is 12.12 and according to the CEFRL, they have only tested at an A1 level. As it has been previously explained in this study, students from countries like Denmark only need to study English for eight years to attain a “Very High” English level (EF EPI Level of English, 2011) while Spanish students only manage to reach a “Medium” level.
What more, our University of Alicante students do not even reach the average level for Spanish students, as an A1 level would correspond to a “Low” or “Very Low” level according to the EF EPI Level of English.
The difference in English levels between our Spanish undergraduates and those Spanish students taking the EF EPI Level of English Exam might be that the undergraduates in our population sample do not necessarily have an interest in learning the English language well while the EF students taking the English level test are taking it to be placed in a group that corresponds with their English level with the aim of studying English abroad. This fact implies that these EF students already value, have taken the initiative, and care about learning and improving their
English level. This may be the reason why our undergraduates’ English level is lower than the EF students’ level.
237 237 5. RESULTS
Years studying English 45
40
35
30
25
20 Years studied English %
15
10
5
0 1 to 56 to 10 11 to 15 > 16
Figure 51. Years studying English.
Regarding the frequency in which subjects watch TV programs, series and movies in English, 17.6% (n = 3) declare that they never do, 58.8% (n = 10) indicate that they sometimes do, 17.6% (n = 3) answered very frequently, while
5.9% (n = 1) state that they normally do (Figure 52).
238 238 5. RESULTS
Frequency of watching programs in English 70
60
50
40
30 Watching programs %
20
10
0 Usually Very often Sometimes Never
Figure 52. Frequency of watching programs, series and movies in English.
Lastly, for 17.6% (n = 3) of the subjects, communicating in English is important and for 82.4% (n = 14) it is very important (Figure 53).
239 239 5. RESULTS
Importance of English communication 90
80
70
60
50 Importance of English 40 communication % 30
20
10
0 Very little Little Indiference Importance A lot
Figure 53. Importance of communicating in English.
Chart 4 shows the students’ perception of the English levels they have in both written skills and oral communication.
240 240 5. RESULTS
Oral Communication level
N %
Very low 2 11.8
Low 6 35.3
Medium 7 41.2
High 2 11.8
Very high 0 0.0
Written level
N %
Very low 1 5.9
Low 1 5.9
Medium 11 64.7
High 4 23.5
Very high 0 0.0
Chart 4. Students’ perceived oral and written English level according to the questionnaire.
241 241 5. RESULTS
Chart 4 illustrates that 11.8% (n = 2) of the subjects perceive their oral communication level in English to be very low, 35.3% (n = 6) of the subjects perceive it to be low, 41.2% (n = 7) perceive it to be medium, and 11.8% (n = 2) of the subjects perceive it to be high. None of the subjects perceive their oral communication level in English to be very high (Figure 54).
Oral communication level 45
40
35
30
25
20 Oral level %
15
10
5
0 Very low Low Medium High Very high
Figure 54. Students’ perceived oral communication level in English.
With respect to the subjects’ written level in English, 5.9% (n = 1) affirm they believe they have a very low level, 5.9% (n = 1) believe they have a low level,
64.7% (n = 11) believe they have a medium level, and 23.5% (n = 4) believe they have a high level (Figure 55).
242 242 5. RESULTS
Written level
70
60
50
40
Written level % 30
20
10
0 Very low Low Medium High Very high
Figure 55. Students’ perceived written level in English.
If we compare the English level that the students think they have, in both oral communication and written skills, with their real level according to the results of the DIALANG test which is based on the CEFRL, we find that the data does not correspond (Chart 5).
While 66.6% of the students actually have a very low level in oral communication, only 11.8% thought they did. Most students that obtained this level thought they had a higher level. We see this same pattern with the rest of the
243 243 5. RESULTS
levels as well: 35.3% thought they had a low level, but only 20% actually tested at a low level. The remaining 15.3% of these population sample subjects thought they had a higher level than they really did. Only 13.3% of the students reached a medium level while 41.2% believed to have it. Lastly, 11.8% of the students believed they had a high level, but none of them did.
In summary, the comparison of students’ perceived level in oral communication with their real level shows that students believed they had a higher level than they really did.
Oral English Students’ perception Students’ real level
Level of their own level according to DIALANG
Very Low 11.8% 66.6%
Low 35.3% 20%
Medium 41.2% 13.3%
High 11.8% 0%
Very High 0% 0%
Chart 5: Students’ perception of oral English level and real level comparison.
Comparing students perceived written level in English with their real level also shows that students believe they have a higher level than they really do. Most
244 244 5. RESULTS
students (64.7%) believe they have a medium level while only 20% actually test at
this level. Instead, the vast majority test at a very low level (36.6%) or a low level
(40%). Also, 23.5% believe they have a high level while only 3.3% actually attain
this level.
Written English Students’ perception of their Students’ real level according to DIALANG Level own level
Very Low 5.9% 36.6%
Low 5.9% 40%
Medium 64.7% 20%
High 23.5% 3.3%
Very High 0% 0%
Chart 6: Students’ perception of written English level and real level comparison.
The frequencies and percentages that correspond to the number of courses
that students have taken that were taught in English can be found in Chart 7. For
47.1% (n = 8), this is the first course taught in English, while 47.1% (n = 8) have
previously taken a course taught in this language. There is one subject (5.9%) who
had previously taken more than three courses taught in English (Figure 56). The
average number of courses taken that were taught in English is 0.71 (DT = 0.96).
245 245 5. RESULTS
This data confirms that although the Spanish Educational Administrations have been recommending the use of the Communicative Language Teaching approach to teach foreign languages for the past few decades, it seems that the objective of most Spanish compulsory and post-compulsory education teachers is not that students become communicatively competent in the English language.
Taking into account the results and data obtained regarding Spanish students’
English level, it is clear that it is impossible for students to achieve communicative competence in a language when it is not used in class.
Furthermore, the students participating in this study previously stated that hey had been studying English for between 11 and 15 years. How can it be then, that 45% of the students had never taken a class taught in English, including their
English language classes? And the other 45% had only taken one course taught in
English throughout their entire 15 years of English classes? These questions will be answered at the end of this study in the Discussion section and the Conclusion.
246 246 5. RESULTS
Courses taken N % 0 8 47.1 1 8 47.1 2 0 0.0 3 0 0.0 > 3 1 5.9 Percentage of course attended N % 25% 0 0.0 50% 0 0.0 75% 0 0.0 100% 17 100.0 Percentage of the course taught in English N % 25% 0 0.0 50% 0 0.0 75% 0 0.0 100% 17 100.0 Perceived improvement in English level N % Very little 0 0.0 Little 1 5.9 Indifferent 0 0.0 Some 11 64.7 A lot 5 29.4 Perceived English teaching capability before course N % No 4 23.5 Very little 7 41.2 Yes 3 17.6 Quite capable 3 17.6 Very capable 0 0.0 Perceived English teaching capability after course N % No 0 0.0 Very little 4 23.5 Yes 6 35.3 Quite capable 3 17.6 Very capable 4 23.5
Chart 7. English courses.
247 247 5. RESULTS
Courses taken in English 50 45 40 35 30 25 Followed courses % 20 15 10 5 0 0123> 3
Figure 56. Courses taken in English.
All subjects declare that they have attended 100% of the course (Figure 57).
Percentage of course attended 120
100
80
60 Often attended course % 40
20
0 25% 50% 75% 100%
Figure 57. Percentage of course attended.
248 248 5. RESULTS
All subjects also confirm that 100% of the course was taught in English
(Figure 58).
Percentage course taught in English 120
100
80
60 Percentage course in English % 40
20
0 25% 50% 75% 100%
Figure 58. Percentage of course taught in English.
Regarding how much the subjects attribute the improvement in their English language level to taking the course in English, 5.9% (n = 1) state they have seen little improvement, 64.7% (n = 11) indicate they have seen some improvement, and
29.4% (n = 5) answered they have seen a lot of improvement (Figure 59).
249 249 5. RESULTS
Students took the DIALANG pre-test and post-test before and after taking the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course, the results of which show an improvement in the students’ English level. Independently of this, the perception the students have about the improvement of their English level is positive, as over 60% of the students believe this course helped them to somewhat improve their English level and almost 30% believe the course helped them improve their English level a lot. Only 5% believe that the course only helped them improve their English level a little bit. The improvement of their English level in general terms is not only the perception that most undergraduates have, but it is a reality, according to the data obtained in this study.
Perceived improvement in English level 70
60
50
40
30 Improved English level %
20
10
0 Very little Little Indiferent Some A lot
Figure 59. Perceived improvement in English level.
250 250 5. RESULTS
Another aspect of the information obtained from this questionnaire that must be highlighted is how capable students feel they are to teach English when they become Preschool teachers.
Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education is the only compulsory course students are required to take while they are completing the
Preschool Education Teacher undergraduate degree. Unless they take other optional courses about the English language or English teaching (which many of them will not), most students will end their Preschool Education Teacher
Undergraduate Program with only the unique knowledge about teaching English offered and acquired in this course. Because of this and the fact that, according to the current legislation and plans, many of them will have to teach English to their preschool students when they become teachers (regardless of how prepared or not they are to carry out this task), the fact that they at least feel capable of teaching
English to their future pupils is paramount.
In reference to the question about how capable they felt they were to teach
English to their future preschool students before taking the Didactics of the English
Language in Preschool Education course, 23.5% (n = 4) did not consider themselves capable of teaching English before taking the course, 41.2% (n = 7) considered themselves to be hardly capable, 17.6% (n = 3) considered themselves to be capable, and 17.6% (n = 3) believed they were quite capable (Figure 60).
251 251 5. RESULTS
Perceived capability of teaching English before taking the course 45 40 35 30 25 20 Capability of teaching English 15 before % 10 5 0 No Very little Yes Quite Very capable capable
Figure 60. Perceived capability of teaching English before course.
At the end of the course, none of the subjects considered themselves to be unable to teach English, 23.5% (n = 4) believed they were hardly capable, 35.3%
(n = 6) believed they were capable of teaching English, 17.6% (n = 3) considered themselves to be quite capable, and 23.5% (n = 4) believed they were very capable (Figure 61).
According to this data, it must be pointed out that before taking the course almost 25% of the students did not feel at all prepared to teach English to their future preschool students, while after taking the course not even one of the students (0%) felt incapable of teaching English in the future.
252 252 5. RESULTS
Before the course, the vast majority (over 40%) felt hardly capable and about only 15% felt capable of teaching English. After taking the course most students (35%) felt capable of teaching English and the feeling of being hardly capable decreased to only 20%. The amount of students feeling quite capable did not change before and after taking the course, but those students feeling very capable increased from 0% before taking the course to almost 25% after taking the course.
In summary, after analyzing the results of the questionnaire, we find that the students’ perception of their capability to teach English after taking the course improved significantly. Although this perception could not reflect reality, the undergraduates’ attitude and the grades they obtained in this course show how capable they are to teach English in Preschool Education.
253 253 5. RESULTS
Perceived capability of teaching English after taking the course 40
35
30
25
20 Capability of teaching English 15 after % 10
5
0 No Very little Yes Quite Very capable capable
Figure 61. Perceived capability of teaching English after course.
Lastly, 58.8% (n = 10) did not experience any difficulty in following the course taught in English, 35.3% (n = 6) experienced very little difficulty, and 5.9%
(n = 1) felt it was difficult to follow the course taught in English. None of the subjects considered following the course taught in English to be quite difficult or very difficult (Chart 8 and Figure 62).
254 254 5. RESULTS
This information is also highly relevant given that for most of them (more than 45%) this was the first time they had to follow a course that used the English language as the language of instruction. The fact that almost 60% of the students did not find it difficult at all to follow the course taught in English, and 35% found it to be not very difficult, considering that half of the students had never taken a class taught in English before and the other half had only taken one previous class where English was used as the language of instruction, is very significant and positive.
Difficulty in following the course
n %
No 10 58.8
Very little 6 35.3
Yes 1 5.9
Quite difficult 0 0.0
Very difficult 0 0.0
Chart 8. Difficulty in following the course in English.
255 255 5. RESULTS
Difficulty in following the course in English 70
60
50
40
30 Difficulty in following the course % 20
10
0 No Very little Yes Quite Very difficult difficult
Figure 62. Difficulty in following the course in English.
256 256 5. RESULTS
5.3. Students’ Assessment
As this study had a double aim which was to determine whether undergraduates taking the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool
Education course improved their English language level, and whether they were able to acquire the contents of the course when it was taught in a foreign language, the main tool used to check to what extent our undergraduates had acquired the course contents are the grades the undergraduates obtained in the course as well as the grades obtained in each of the assessable parts of the course.
Chart 9 shows that the group of undergraduates acquired the course contents quite well given that the average final grade obtained in the course was 7.29.
Some of them did not pass the course, the lowest final grade being 4.88. However, even this grade which is only a few decimal points too low to pass the course indicates an almost sufficient acquisition of the course contents. Some of the undergraduates’ highest final grades were 8.84, which is quite a good final grade for undergraduates who were mostly taking a course taught in English for the first time.
Standard N Average deviation Minimum Maximum
Final Grade 19 7.29 0.90 4.88 8.84
Chart 9. Descriptive statistics of course final grades.
257 257 5. RESULTS
It is important to mention that the grades obtained in each of the assessable parts of the course that made up the final grade were not all given the same percentage weight. Each assessable part that made up the final grade had the following percentage weight:
- Exam 1 was worth 15% of the final grade.
- Exam 2 was worth 15% of the final grade.
- The Oral Presentation on Methods (in groups) was worth 10% of the final
grade.
- Making and telling the storybook (in groups) was worth 10% of the final
grade.
- The Didactic Unit Presentation (individually) was worth 25% of the final
grade.
- The Didactic Unit Development (individually) was worth 25% of the final
grade.
In Chart 10, the descriptive statistics that correspond to the grades the undergraduates received in each of the assessable parts of the course can be found (Figure 63).
258 258 5. RESULTS
Standard N Average deviation Minimum Maximum
Exam 1 19 6.98 0.74 5.00 8.33
Exam 2 19 8.25 0.86 6.55 9.66
Oral Presentation 19 6.68 1.06 5.00 8.00
Story Book 19 8.53 0.51 7.50 9.50
DU Presentation 19 6.69 1.75 3.50 10.00
DU Develop. 18 7.64 1.66 4.00 9.80
Chart 10. Descriptive statistics of course grades.
If we take a closer look at the results obtained by the students in the different parts that comprise the assessment of the students’ achievement throughout the course (Chart 10), we can observe how their grades improved significantly from Exam 1 to Exam 2. While going over the results of the exams with the students, they said that they had found it easier to study for the second exam than for the first. For the first exam, they tried to just memorize the material, but eventually found that it was impossible and amounted to a waste of time, so they finally had to develop strategies to study in English. To study for the second exam, they did not try to memorize the material, but to understand
259 259 5. RESULTS
the contents instead, applying, summarizing, and schematizing main points, which gave them a better understanding of the contents they were studying and resulted in a more productive use of their study time. That the new strategies for studying were more effective is visible in the improvement in their grades.
Not only did the average grades improve, but this improvement is reflected in the minimum and maximum grades as well (Exam 1 minimum grade: 5.00,
Exam 2 minimum grade: 6.55, Exam 1 maximum grade: 8.33 and Exam 2 maximum grade: 9.66).
Also of note is that students received better grades on those assignments that involved written skills as opposed to oral ones such as creating the children’s storybook versus telling the story to the class, or elaborating the didactic unit versus presenting it to the class. The assignments that involved speaking, such as the presentation of the Storybook and the Didactic Unit, register the lowest grades (average grades of 6.68 and 6.69 respectively) not taking into account the first exam average grade for which they wasted a lot of time trying to memorize the contents (6.98 of average grade). The average grades for the assignments involving writing, including the second exam, were notably higher, 8.25 in Exam 2, 8.53 in the elaboration of the storybook, and
7.64 in the development of the didactic unit. In the students’ opinion, the reason for these results was they felt much more comfortable using written language than oral language because for most of them it was the first time
260 260 5. RESULTS
giving an oral presentation in English, and on top of that, for quite a large audience of around 50 students.
I would also like to highlight that the assignments on which students received the lowest grades, some even failing these parts, were the Didactic
Unit Presentation (minimum grade was 3.50) and the development of the
Didactic Unit (minimum grade was 4.00). Students attributed this to the difficulty they had in expressing themselves in English with the added stress of addressing such a large audience (Didactic Unit Presentation). They also felt that the difficulty of having to carry out multiple cognitive processes using the
English language to elaborate a didactic unit that compiled all the methodological principles and the variety of activities required to successfully complete the task played a role.
In Chart 10, we can see that the DU Presentation is the assignment on which students received the highest grade, followed by the DU Development,
Exam 2, Making the Storybook, Exam 1 and finally the Oral Presentation on
Methods.
It is also remarkable to find that the students received the highest and lowest grades on the same assignment, the Didactic Unit presentation
(minimum grade of 3.50 and maximum grade of 10). During the Didactic Units
261 261 5. RESULTS
presentations, the contrast between the difficulty students with low fluency in
English had giving the presentations and the ease with which students with a higher fluency had was noticeable; it was easy to see that they felt more comfortable and secure speaking in front of and addressing the class.
Another aspect worthy of mentioning is that students created the storybook and gave the oral presentation in groups of six, and it was obvious how cooperative learning helped those students with a lower fluency in English. The lowest grade received on the Didactic Unit presentation was 5.00. Since the students had to complete this project individually, the students’ differences in fluency were apparent (the lowest grade received on the Didactic Unit
Presentation was a 3.5). Working in groups had a positive effect on those students with a lower English level, but it had a negative effect on those students with a higher level. This fact is visible when comparing the maximum grades obtained in both: the maximum grade on the storybook group presentation is 8.00 and the maximum grade on the Didactic Unit individual presentation is 10.00.
262 262 5. RESULTS
Figure 63. Box plot of course grades.
Pearson’s correlation (Figure 63 and Chart 11) shows a significant relation between the grades on the first exam and the grades on the second exam (r=
0.753; p = 0.000). A positive association has also been observed between the
Final Grade and the Didactic Unit Presentation (r = 0.659; p = 0.002), and with the
Didactic Unit Development (r = 0.779; p = 0.000).
263 263 5. RESULTS
Oral DU DU Exam 2 Presentation Story Book Presentation Development Final Grade Exam 1 R 0.753*** -0.187 -0.074 -0.118 -0.097 0.432 p 0.000 0.443 0.765 0.631 0.702 0.065 n 19 19 19 19 18 19 Exam 2 R 0.127 0.065 -0.347 -0.285 0.206 p 0.606 0.791 0.145 0.251 0.398 n 19 19 19 18 19 Oral Presentation R 0.221 0.017 0.087 0.024 p 0.363 0.945 0.732 0.923 n 19 19 18 19 Story Book R 0.257 -0.119 0.162 p 0.288 0.638 0.507 n 19 18 19 DU Presentation R 0.382 0.659** p 0.118 0.002 n 18 19 DU Development R 0.779*** p 0.000 n 18
Chart 11. Pearson´s correlation of course grade.
The simple regression analysis has been applied by taking the individual grades the students received in each of the assessable parts of the course as predictor variables with the aim of studying their predictive value for the final grade
(Chart 12). It can be observed that only the DU Presentation grade (B = 0.338; p =
0.002) and the DU Development grade (B = 0.330; p = 0.000) have resulted in being good predictors of the final grade.
264 264 5. RESULTS
2 Predictor Constant B β p R aj Exam 1 3.616 0.526 0.432 0.065 0.139 Exam 2 5.520 0.214 0.206 0.398 0.000 Oral Presentation 7.154 0.020 0.024 0.923 0.000 Story Book 4.868 0.284 0.162 0.507 0.000 DU Presentation 5.026 0.338 0.659 0.002 0.401 DU Develop. 4.898 0.330 0.779 0.000 0.582 Dependent variable: Final Grade.
Chart 12. Regression estimates.
265 265
266
6. DISCUSSIONS
268
6. DISCUSSION
As the main aim of this study was divided into several specific objectives, those specific objectives will be addressed one by one, providing the corresponding analysis from the data obtained, as well as the hypothesis posed for this study.
The first three objectives deal with the same aspect, the undergraduates’
English language improvement. The first specific objective was:
OBJECTIVE 1
To assess undergraduates’ English level before taking the Didactics of the English
Language in Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool Education Teacher
Undergraduate Program, in which CLIL methodology has been implemented.
When assessing the undergraduates’ English Level before taking the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool
Education Teacher Undergraduate Program in which Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) methodology was implemented, unfortunately we find that according to the results of the DIALANG diagnostic test, most students had a very low English level, only reaching an A1 level according to the CEFRL. This
269 269 6. DISCUSSION
result is not only very low compared with students from many European countries which reach the C1 or even C2 English language levels (such as Denmark, the
Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Poland, Austria, Estonia, Belgium,
Germany or Slovenia), but also compared to other Spanish students, who in general have a B1 or B2 level according to the EF EPI Level of English scales. As explained previously in this study, however, the results of the EF English Levels held by the Spanish students that we compare our undergraduates to may be higher than the average Spanish students because these students take the EF
English level test to be placed in a specific class to learn English, so these students already show an interest in learning the English language that the average student may not have. In any case, we should reconsider our approach to teaching English at all levels of the Spanish Educational System because it is obviously not just a matter of the amount of time spent learning English that affects
English language levels. Spain is one of the European countries that begins teaching English to students at an earlier (age 3), and our students receive an average of 1,200 hours of English classes before they reach university, yet our students still have some of the lowest English levels in the European Union.
Therefore, we should really reflect on the quality of English teaching we are offering our students, who after completing so many hours of English classes, can only attain the lowest CEFRL level: A1.
270 270 6. DISCUSSION
The second specific objective was:
OBJECTIVE 2
To assess undergraduates’ English level after taking the Didactics of the English
Language in Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool Education Teacher
Undergraduate Program, in which CLIL methodology has been implemented.
When assessing the undergraduates’ English level after taking the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool
Education Teacher Undergraduate Program in which Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) methodology was implemented, we find that at least 11 out of the 15 students participating in this study pass from one level to the next in at least one skill and show significant improvement in their English language level.
It is important to highlight that the duration of this course was only 60 hours within a four-month period. If we compare the undergraduates’ improvement after taking a mere 60-hour course in which English was used as the vehicle of communication for teaching and learning about non-linguistic contents and CLIL methodology was used, with the English level the students achieved after having taken approximately 1,200 hours of English classes (A1), we may affirm that the
271 271 6. DISCUSSION
methodology used has been remarkably successful, given that it has helped 11 of the 15 students taking part in this study improve their English language level in a relatively short period of time while they were also learning other area contents.
The third specific objective was:
OBJECTIVE 3
To discover to what extent undergraduates’ English level has improved after taking the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course taught in the
Preschool Education Teacher Undergraduate Program, in which CLIL methodology has been implemented.
Comparing to what extent the undergraduates’ English language level has improved after taking the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool
Education course taught in the Preschool Education Teacher Undergraduate
Program in which Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) methodology was implemented has only been possible for the 11 students that have passed from one level to the next in one or more of the skills that this test assesses.
However, it has not been possible to measure the progress made by students that remained within the same level, as the DIALANG test does not provide this type of
272 272 6. DISCUSSION
data. But even lacking data regarding the students´ possible improvement within the same CEFRL level, the data obtained for the 11 students is enough to affirm that students taking the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool Education Teacher Undergraduate Program in which Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) methodology was implemented, have significantly improved their English language level.
The two hypotheses posed in relation with these three specific objectives are specified below:
Hypothesis 1
Undergraduates’ English level before taking the Didactics of the English Language in
Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool Education Teacher
Undergraduate Program, in which CLIL methodology has been implemented, is significantly lower than after taking the course.
273 273 6. DISCUSSION
Hypothesis 2
Undergraduates’ English level after taking the Didactics of the English Language in
Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool Education Teacher
Undergraduate Program, in which CLIL methodology has been implemented, is significantly higher than before taking the course.
These hypotheses have been tested and corroborated. The results obtained in the study support them given that 11 of the 15 students taking part in this study improved their English level, according to the CEFRL, after taking the Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course in which CLIL methodology was used. These results indicate that there was significant improvement in the students’ English language level.
So, in relation to the factors influencing the improvement of undergraduates’
English communicative competence (Pinkley, n.d.), the data obtained in this study points out that the degree of students’ exposure to CLIL is directly related to their improvement in the English language, as Wolff (2013) predicted.The results of this study show improvement in students’ English level, but mainly in their written skills.
274 274 6. DISCUSSION
Students would need to have more exposure to CLIL in order to significantly improve their oral abilities.
The fourth and fifth objectives and the third hypothesis all refer to the capability students have to follow a course taught in English. These are explained next:
OBJECTIVE 4
To ascertain if our undergraduates are capable of understanding and acquiring the course contents when taking a course in English in which CLIL methodology is used.
In order to answer the question about whether or not our undergraduates are capable of following a course taught in English, in which Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) methodology is used, and understanding and acquiring the course contents, some facts are commented below:
As mentioned before, it is clear that the undergraduates obtained better results in those assessable parts in which written skills were involved as opposed to those parts in which oral skills were involved.
275 275 6. DISCUSSION
The undergraduates’ final grades are calculated from grades they receive in several different categories. If we use their final grades, which were calculated from the grades they received on the different assignments, as the main tool to check to what extent they successfully acquired the course contents, we find that most students passed the course with good grades, 7.29 being the average course final grade on a ten point scale. This indicates that the undergraduates acquired the course contents quite well. Some students did not receive a passing grade in some of the categories that constitute the final grade, 4.88 being the lowest grade received, which does not necessarily indicate a very low acquisition of the contents even in those parts. However, none of the students failed the course as the computation of their final grades from the results obtained in all of the categories assessed throughout the course resulted in passing grades. The highest final grades were 8.84, which is quite a good result for undergraduates, most of whom were taking a content course taught in English for the first time.
So we can state that our undergraduates, despite having quite a low English level (A1), were able to follow the course taught in English and use the English language during the course to complete the necessary assignments. If we ask them, they may think they are not ready to take a course taught in English.
Moreover, if we determine that they have only achieved an A1 level in English, we may also think they are not ready to take a course taught in English. Yet, this is the great tragedy our students have suffered since they started attending Preschool
276 276 6. DISCUSSION
Education. If students have teachers and professors that use the correct methodology and can provide them the necessary framework to help them reach their goals and develop their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), it is possible for them to follow classes in English at any age or level.
OBJECTIVE 5
To determine to what extent undergraduates taking the Didactics of the English
Language in Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool Education Teacher
Undergraduate Program in which CLIL methodology has been implemented have acquired the contents of the course.
On one hand, when reviewing the students’ questionnaire answers with regard to the difficulty that they experienced following the course in English, we find that only 5% found it to be difficult while almost 60% did not find it to be difficult at all, and around 35% found it to be a little difficult. Therefore, it can be stated that with the support of CLIL methodology, using English as the language of instruction during the course did not present significant problems for students.
277 277 6. DISCUSSION
On the other hand, when determining whether or not students were able to understand and acquire the course contents, we can use the course final grades which demonstrate that all the students taking part in this study passed the course.
We must also bear in mind that English was used throughout the entire course, which students confirmed in their questionnaire answers, and that the students’ average English level before taking the course was A1 (CEFRL).
To find out to what extent the undergraduates who took the Didactics of the
English Language in Preschool Education course taught in the Preschool
Education Teacher Undergraduate Program in which Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) methodology was implemented have acquired the contents of the course, we can evaluate the grades students obtained in the categories used to calculate the final grade. If we look at the average grades in each of the categories, the task of storytelling using an original storybook of their own creation presents the highest average grade, 8.53 on a ten point scale. This is followed by the results of the second exam, 8.25 on a ten point scale. The average final grade was 7.29, which is quite good, and the lowest average grade was received on the Didactic Unit Presentation, 6.69 on a ten point scale. Despite these results, some students did fail two of the six parts used to compute the final grade
(Didactic Unit Development and Didactic Unit Presentation), but none of the students failed any of the four other parts of the assessment (Exam 1, Exam 2,
278 278 6. DISCUSSION
Oral Presentation and Storybook). So, it can be stated that all the students understood and acquired the course contents to a large extent.
Grades obtained by undergraduates in each of the assessable parts of the course are not scientifically verified, but the result of the professor’s assessment of the undergraduates regarding their achievement of the expected learning outcomes in the course has a significant reference value.
The hypothesis that relates to objectives four and five was hypothesis three:
Hypothesis 3
Undergraduates understand and acquire the course contents, even though these contents are presented and taught in English, thanks to the implementation of CLIL methodology.
This hypothesis has been tested and corroborated. The results obtained in the study support it given that even though half of the students were taking a course in which English was used as the vehicular language for the first time, and the other half for the second time, both their final grades in the course as well as the grades they received in the different categories used to calculate the final
279 279 6. DISCUSSION
grade were satisfactory (which show the students’ achievement of the learning outcomes expected for the course). Also, in the students’ opinion, it was not difficult to follow the course in English.
Another objective stated for this study was to ascertain undergraduates’ English language background and their predisposition to take courses in English. This is the sixth objective and the fourth and fifth hypotheses, which are analyzed next.
OBJECTIVE 6
To find out what our undergraduates’ experience with the English language is, what their personal characteristics are, and their opinion and posture about taking courses in which CLIL methodology is used.
In order to find out what our undergraduates experience with the English language has been, what their personal characteristics are, and their opinion and posture about taking courses in which CLIL methodology is used, students answered a questionnaire. According to their answers, we find that most subjects of this study were between 18 and 20 years of age, and that although some of them had studied two or four languages in the past, most of them had studied three
280 280 6. DISCUSSION
languages (Spanish, Valencian, and English).However, most of them (80%) can only communicate in two of those languages (Spanish and Valencian), despite having studied the third language (English) for between 11 to 15 years or more
(approximately 1,200 hours of English classes). We also find that most of them only watch TV programs in English sometimes, but feel it is very important to be able to communicate in English (80%). The reality is that when we compare the oral and written English levels that the students have with the levels that they think they have, they do not correspond. Sadly, students believe they have a higher level than they really do (most of them that believed they had a medium level, actually had a low level). Half of the students had never taken a content course in English before and the other half had, keeping in mind that these students had taken around 15 years of English classes. All the opinions collected in this questionnaire were valuable given that all the students that took part in the study attended 100% of the classes. Also, in the students’ opinion, taking the Didactics of the English
Language in Preschool Education course has significantly helped them improve their English language level. Moreover, learning the contents taught in the course have helped 35% of them feel capable, 17% of them feel quite capable, and 25% of them feel very capable of teaching English in Preschool Education classes in the future. Although their previous perception about their English language level was not correct, their perception of being capable of teaching English in Preschool
Education classes after taking the course is correct as their grades in the course confirm it. Lastly, almost 60% of the students did not find it difficult to follow the
281 281 6. DISCUSSION
course taught using CLIL methodology and about 35% found it to be only a little difficult.
So these results allow us to agree with the key benefits of CLIL (Pinkley, n.d.) for students: increased motivation, meaningful use of English to reach immediate, real-life goals, development of multicultural awareness, and preparation for future studies and work in a global context.
Also many of Dale and Tanner’s (2012) collection of benefits for CLIL learners have been observed throughout the course, and they were also reflected in the students’ questionnaire answers.
Some of these noticeable benefits were:
- Learners were motivated. - Learners developed cognitively and their brains worked harder. - Learners developed communication skills. - Learners made new personal meanings in another language. - Learners’ language progressed more. - Learners received a lot of input and worked effectively with that input. - Learners interacted meaningfully. - Learners learned to speak and write. - Learners developed intercultural awareness. - Learners learned about the English culture. - Learners are prepared for studying in another language.
282 282 6. DISCUSSION
- Learners learned in different ways.
The hypotheses related to this objective were hypotheses four and five which are detailed next:
Hypothesis 4
Undergraduates’ English level before taking the course is highly varied depending on each student’s educational background and their experience with the foreign language.
This hypothesis has not been tested, and therefore the results obtained in the study do not support it. Most students (80%) taking part in the study had an A1
English level according to CEFRL, 13.3% had an A2 level, and only 6.6% had a B1 level. There does not seem to be a direct link between the undergraduates’ educational background and their English language level, as independent of their educational background, most undergraduates reach an A1 English language level.
283 283 6. DISCUSSION
According to these results, we may agree with the Council of the European
Union (2005), treating the subject “Luxembourg Presidency position on plurilingual education”, when emphasizing how “CLIL can be a means to give all learners, regardless of their educational, social or economic background, the opportunity to strengthen their knowledge of foreign languages” (p. EN 3).
Neither our undergraduates’ background nor the fact that most of them had a very low English level hindered their ability to successfully follow and understand a course taught in English.
Hypothesis 5
Undergraduates’ posture on taking courses in which CLIL methodology is applied is significantly more positive after taking the course.
This hypothesis has been tested and corroborated given that the results obtained in the study support it. Contrary to what students thought when starting the course, and even though half of the students were taking a course in which
English was used as the vehicular language for the first time, and the other half for the second time, students found that taking a course taught in English in which
CLIL methodology was used was not difficult.
284 284 6. DISCUSSION
Following a course and studying its contents in a language undergraduates do not master is obviously not an easy task, but our undergraduates valued the many benefits they were obtaining from carrying out this task (Bentley, 2010).These are some of the CLIL benefits: improved learners’ production of the language of curricular subjects, improved learners’ performance in both curricular subjects and the target language, and increased learners’ confidence in the target language.
When affirming that following a CLIL course was not a difficult task, certainly learners thought that all the benefits received were well worth the effort.
The last objective stated for this study was to provide the educational community with valuable data that it can use to help undergraduates improve their
English communicative competence. This is explained next:
OBJECTIVE 7
To offer the educational community (undergraduates, professors, departments and educational administrations) findings so it can provide better guidance in the development of the English communicative competence in our undergraduates by analyzing the data obtained.
285 285 6. DISCUSSION
In my opinion, the data obtained in this study offers the educational community
(undergraduates, professors, departments and educational administrations) some very important and relevant information regarding the current situation of our undergraduate students in relation to foreign languages, English in particular.
The results obtained provide real facts which can help us to improve our undergraduates’ English proficiency and guide us in the development of their
English communicative competence. By taking the necessary measures and offering them the tools they need to gain the indispensable English proficiency, they will finally be able to really become communicatively competent in English, and complete European citizens.
As discussed before, it is not just a matter of beginning to teach English to our students at an earlier age, nor increasing the number of compulsory hours of
English classes per week (approximately 1,200 hours throughout 14 years), but improving the quality of the English lessons we offer. In my opinion, every English language teacher and professor should seriously reflect on the way they are teaching English to their students and ask themselves if what they do in class is helping to improve their students’ communicative competence in English. Many times we cannot see the forest for the trees and end up losing sight of our real objective. Our main and final aim as English teachers at both the compulsory and post-compulsory levels is that our students reach communicative competence in
286 286 6. DISCUSSION
the language. Therefore, everything we do during the English lessons and all the aspects of the language we teach (lexicon, expressions, grammar structures, pronunciation, etc.) should be directed towards helping our students reach communicative competence in English; that is our sole reason for teaching English at any level of compulsory and post-compulsory education. It is obvious that to do it successfully, we have to sequence the work, the contents, create activities, and give exams, among other things, but everything should be conceived with the goal of helping students acquire communicative competence. The student’s goal is not to pass an English exam on content they do not know how to use. It is impossible for our students to develop aural competence if the English class is not taught in
English. Students will never be able to develop listening comprehension while they are taught English in their mother tongue, as they will not receive the listening input necessary to develop listening competence. It is impossible to teach students to correctly pronounce sounds they do not recognize and that do not exist in their mother tongue, so it is vital that our students receive English classes in English.
Listening is the basis for learning how to speak and having a command of oral skills is the basis for correctly developing written skills.
Our students are ready to learn in English in their Preschool class at 3 years of age, as long as we support their learning process by laying the foundations. The results obtained after taking English classes for 14 years and receiving a total amount of 1,200 hours of English lessons would be very different if the language of
287 287 6. DISCUSSION
instruction was English. I think we are wasting our students’ valuable time and we should take into consideration what we are doing while teaching English. We need to ask ourselves how we can improve, not only for our students’ benefit, but also for our own personal and professional satisfaction, because our responsibility as
English teachers and professors is to ensure that our students achieve communicative competence in English.
Also, if Carretero (1998) was right and our students tend to teach the way they were taught, the chance that our undergraduates will use English to teach English in the future and do it in a functional, meaningful and communicative way greatly increases after taking this CLIL course.
This is the only way that they will be able to achieve the aims the Council of
Europe established for their generation in all the member countries of the
European Union. These include being able to think critically, having access to communication, information, job opportunities, courses, and personal development opportunities in Europe and around the world, as well as so many other innumerable advantages that speaking a foreign language, especially English, can offer in today’s society and today’s world. In the past, being able to speak English was considered a luxury, but nowadays it has turned into a huge necessity for our undergraduates.
288 288 6. DISCUSSION
It is also important to highlight that during the bibliography and references search, very few significant studies on CLIL implementation results have been found. Likewise, it has not been observed in any study or book found in the bibliography that students show a higher level in written skills over oral skills, as we find in this study.
I would like to identify some of the most important findings in this study:
- Most of our undergraduates had an A1 level before taking the course.
- CLIL methodology works to teach foreign language, as it has improved our
undergraduates’ English level according to the CEFRL.
- CLIL methodology works to teach course contents, as our undergraduates
have acquired the expected learning outcomes for the course as evidenced
by their grades.
- CLIL is feasible to learn a foreign language in a pragmatic way (vocabulary,
grammar structures, in real situations, etc.).
- CLIL shows how learning a foreign language through immersion is feasible,
without spending explicit time teaching grammar.
- Working with CLIL methodology and raising undergraduates’ self-esteem go
hand to hand.
289 289 6. DISCUSSION
To conclude, I would like to quote Frigols once again making an addition to her statement: “CLIL: a European solution for a European need” (2010, p. 7), which can be the key to solve a Spanish problem.
290 290 7. CONCLUSIONS
292
7. CONCLUSIONS
Using CLIL methodology to teach the Didactics of the English Language in
Preschool Education course has been a great adventure for me and also for those students taking the course.
Beginning the journey by searching for its origins, and continuing on to review its use in European countries, investigate the European legislative framework through which this method has been spread throughout most of the
European countries, research its use in compulsory educational levels in Spain and also its development in Higher Education, discover the state of the art methods being developed nowadays, and finally creating and developing the above mentioned course following CLIL principles and methodology has been a very long and complicated project.
The final conclusion to which the results of this investigation have led me is mainly that we have a huge necessity in Spain to modify the traditional methods and approaches to teaching English that have been used up until now at all educational levels because they do not help students achieve the vital communicative competence in English promised by the educational administration curriculums. There are other methods which do promote and develop communicative competence in English, as has been presented in this study, so why do we not use them?
293 293 7. CONCLUSIONS
The educators in our country need to look for and apply (and not only at certain centers) innovative methods for teaching English because the ones traditionally used have not helped our students become communicatively competent in English. We need new methods through which communicating in
English is a reality from the very first day of class and not just a faraway aim that students will be able to reach in a distant future; a goal that we have seen does not even become reality after taking so many years of English courses.
Using CLIL throughout this course and studying it to develop this thesis, has given me the opportunity to explore and discover that there are methods which do promote communication and which really help students to learn and use the
English language.
One of the most difficult challenges for teachers to overcome when faced with the task of teaching English is to create a context in which students feel the need to communicate in English. Using CLIL methodology in non-linguistic areas already provides that meaningful context for the student and although it may sound very difficult for students to follow a course in a second language in which they will be assessed on the contents learned, it is not impossible if the right methodology is employed.
294 294 7. CONCLUSIONS
English is used to learn contents, and as they learn contents, they also learn
English in a pragmatic, significant and inductive way.
The results of this research have shown that students taking the course have significantly improved their English level in different skills and language elements thank to CLIL methodology. Even though no time was dedicated to explaining English linguistic contents in a deductive or explicit way throughout the course, undergraduates improved their English language level thanks to the opportunity given throughout the course of using English and being exposed to it.
The drawbacks of using traditional methods that do not work are that our students do not become fluent in a foreign language, and that these methods have the tendency to damage the students’ self-esteem in terms of how they perceive their ability to learn a foreign language. In the traditional language classroom, students do not have the opportunity to be good at communicating in English given that no time during the English classes is devoted to communication. What they have learned after more than a decade of taking English courses is that after so many hours dedicated to studying English they are still not able to communicate at even a basic level, so they assume the reason must be that they are not good at learning languages. That is the perception most Spanish students have regarding their ability to learn English.
295 295 7. CONCLUSIONS
We, as English teachers and professors, have the responsibility of providing our students with enough English aural input, and opportunities for them to listen and practice communicating in English in the right contexts, because as Rothfuss said “Practice makes the master”. Without meaningful contexts and plenty of opportunities for our students to develop communication skills, what is the point of having them master grammar structures if they do not know how and when to use them because they have never had the need nor the opportunity to do it?
In this study, it has been shown that Spanish students from the Valencian
Autonomous Community studying in the Preschool Education Teacher
Undergraduate Program at the University of Alicante have been able to learn course contents in a foreign language they were not fluent in while also learning how to correctly use the foreign language at the same time. At the end of the course, students found that the class being taught in English was not an obstacle for them to learn and assimilate the course contents. On the contrary, the course contents gave communicating in English a purpose and made it useful and significant.
Also being exposed to the English language and having to use it helped students improve their level in English in an inductive way.
296 296 7. CONCLUSIONS
The results presented in this study were obtained after students had only taken a 60-hour course that employed the principles of CLIL methodology.
Therefore, we should ask ourselves, what results could we obtain if we began using CLIL methodology in Preschool when students start learning English?
I think the plurilingual programs in the Valencian Autonomous Community are on the right track towards helping our students achieve bilingualism, as long as all students can take at least one non-linguistic area subject in English at every educational stage, from Preschool up until the end of their studies. Nowadays this only happens in those schools that choose to offer this curriculum. The new educational reform “LOMCE” opens the door for schools to offer this option if they want to, but for the educational administrations, it is still not a must but rather just an option. Therefore, for now, bilingualism in students will depend on the good will of school principals who develop plurilingual programs and find teachers who are capable of teaching them.
297 297
298
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
EVALUACIÓN DE LA APLICACIÓN DE LA METODOLOGÍA AICLE (APRENDIZAJE INTEGRADO DE CONTENIDOS Y LENGUAS EXTRANJERAS) EN LA ASIGNATURA “DIDÁCTICA DE LA LENGUA INGLESA” EN EL TÍTULO DE GRADO: MAESTRO EN EDUCACIÓN INFANTIL, EN LA UNIVERSIDAD DE ALICANTE.
Myriam Cherro Samper
Dpto. Innovación y Formación Didáctica Facultad de Educación. Universidad de Alicante
RESUMEN DE LA TESIS
1. INTRODUCCIÓN
Durante el curso 2011-2012 se realizó en la Universidad de Alicante una investigación para comprobar si el uso de la metodología “Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lenguas Extranjeras” (AICLE) realmente mejoraba el nivel de los estudiantes en lengua inglesa a la vez que el alumnado adquiría los contenidos propios de la asignatura “Didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa en
Educación Infantil” en el Grado de Maestro de Educación Infantil.
Para ello se utilizó el programa en línea DIALANG como instrumento de auto-evaluación de la lengua para averiguar los conocimientos de Inglés que tenían los estudiantes antes y después de cursar la asignatura siguiendo la metodología AICLE. Esta investigación se desarrolló con el fin de obtener resultados que expliquen en qué medida afecta en la competencia comunicativa en Inglés de los alumnos de los Grados de Maestro de Educación Infantil el uso de la metodología AICLE en la asignatura “Didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa en
301
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
Educación Infantil”. La herramienta propuesta para realizar esta evaluación de
nivel de Lengua Inglesa en el alumnado es el programa informático DIALANG.
DIALANG es un sistema de diagnóstico para la evaluación de lenguas on-line,
elaborado por el Consejo de Europa, para determinar el nivel de los usuarios en
catorce lenguas europeas, siguiendo la clasificación establecida en el Marco
Común Europeo de Referencia para las Lenguas (MCERL).
Para comprobar la influencia de la metodología AICLE en el desarrollo de
la competencia comunicativa en inglés del alumnado, se aplicó la prueba
DIALANG como pre-test y como post-test evaluando el nivel del alumnado en
Lengua Inglesa antes de cursar la asignatura y después de haberla cursado.
Gracias a las herramientas tecnológicas con las que contamos en la
actualidad, como el sistema de evaluación diagnóstica on-line DIALANG,
podemos comprobar la calidad de la enseñanza que impartimos y medir los
resultados obtenidos, proporcionando a la vez al alumnado información sobre su
proceso de aprendizaje y cómo mejorarlo progresando de manera autónoma.
2. MARCO TEÓRICO
Descripción de la metodología AICLE
AICLE significa Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lengua Extranjera.
Hace referencia a la enseñanza de asignaturas como ciencias, geografía,
302
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
historia, matemáticas, educación física, etc. impartidas en una lengua extranjera y no en la lengua materna de los estudiantes. Este método puede ser aplicado tanto por profesores de lengua extranjera que incorporan contenidos de otras áreas a la clase de lengua extranjera como por profesores de otras áreas que no sean de lengua extranjera que impartan los contenidos de su asignatura usando la lengua extranjera. De ambos modos los estudiantes adquieren simultáneamente contenidos específicos de un área no lingüística y una lengua extranjera. El término inglés para AICLE, CLIL (Content and
Language Integrated Learning), lo acuñó David Marsh, de la Universidad de
Jyväskylä, en Finlandia (1994):
CLIL is not a new form of language education. It is not a new form of subject education. It is a fusion of both. It is content-driven, and this is where it both extends the experience of learning a language, and where it becomes different to existing language-teaching approaches (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010, p. 1).
Aplicando la definición sobre la metodología AICLE, los estudiantes aprenden contenidos de diversas áreas a la vez que aprenden un idioma extranjero. Coyle y Marsh definen la metodología AICLE en CLIL/EMILE - The
European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential como:
CLIL is a lifelong concept that embraces all sectors of education from primary to adults, from a few hours per week to intensive modules lasting several months. It may involve project work, examination courses, drama, puppets, chemistry practices and mathematical investigations. CLIL is flexible and dynamic, where topics and subjects – foreign languages and non-language
303
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
subjects – are integrated in some kind of mutually beneficial way so as to provide value-added educational outcomes for the widest possible range of learners (Coyle, 2008, p. 3).
Finalmente, Kees de Bot (en Marsh, 2002), define la aplicación de la metodología AICLE en el aula de este modo:
It is obvious that teaching a subject in a foreign language is not the same as an integration of language and content… language teachers and subject teachers need to work together… [to] formulate the new didactics needed for a real integration of form and function in language teaching (p. 32).
Pero además conviene tener en cuenta que AICLE proporciona al alumnado algunos beneficios que podemos considerar inherntes a la propia metodología y sus desarrollo y que por ello contribuyen a la motivación del alumnado y la optimización de los ersultados. ¿En qué modo y en qué medida la metodología
AICLE motiva y beneficia a los estudiantes más que otros métodos tradicionales? A continuación se citan algunas de las razones por las que esta metodología beneficia a los estudiantes:
- El alumnado AICLE se siente motivado ante la propia dinámica de participación activa y constante en el proceso.
- El alumnado AICLE desarrolla estrategias cognitivas y sus mentes trabajan más intensamente.
- El alumnado AICLE desarrolla habilidades comunicativas.
- El alumnado AICLE da nuevos significados personales en otra lengua.
304
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
- La lengua del alumnado AICLE progresa más.
- El alumnado AICLE recibe mucha más información y trabaja de manera efectiva con la información recibida.
- El alumnado AICLE interactúa significativamente.
- El alumnado AICLE aprende a hablar y a escribir.
- El alumnado AICLE desarrolla una conciencia intercultural.
- El alumnado AICLE aprende sobre la “cultura” de la asignatura.
- El alumnado AICLE está preparado para estudiar en otra lengua.
- El alumnado AICLE aprende de diferentes maneras (Dale y Tanner, 2012, pp. 11-13).
A lo largo de la investigación se explica cómo la metodología AICLE ha sido experimentada, probada y evaluada con alumnado con necesidades educativas especiales, obteniendo resultados satisfactorios en muchos casos debido a la gran semajanza entre algunas de las técnicas aplicadas tanto en
AICLE como en educación especial (Alton-Lee, 2003).
Convertir la teoría a la práctica no siempre es facil, por eso también se dedica un apartado de la investigación a explicitar como aplicar la teoría y filosofía de la metodología AICLE en clase (Darn, 2006; Frigols, 2010; Pinkley,
2011 y Coyle, 1999).
Otro de los apartados se centra en explicar cómo ha de ser y qué características ha de reunir un professor que imparta asignaturas con la
305
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
metodología AICLE (Dale y Tanner, 2012; Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010; Bertaux,
Coonan, Frigols-Martín y Mehisto, 2009).
Así mismo también se dedica parte del marco teórico a investigar la presencia y uso de la metodología AICLE en España (Coyle, 2010 en
Lasagabaster; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010; Ruiz de Zarobe y Jiménez-Catalán, 2009) y más concretamente su aplicación en la Educación Superior (Fortanet-Gómez,
2013; Fortanet-Gómez y Räisänen, 2008; Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Hatch, 1992).
3. OBJETIVOS
La investigación se propone conocer aquellos factores del proceso de enseñanza – aprendizaje de los contenidos de una materia en una lengua extranjera, que puedan tener relación con los resultados alcanzados en dicha
área y con la mejora de su competencia comunicativa en la lengua utilizada. Este objetivo general se desglosa en los siguientes objetivos específicos:
1- Evaluar el conocimiento de los alumnos en Lengua Inglesa de los alumnos
de Grado de Maestro en Infantil antes de cursar la asignatura “Didáctica
de la Lengua Inglesa en Ed. Infantil” en la que se aplica la metodología
AICLE.
2- Evaluar el conocimiento de los alumnos en didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa
en los alumnos de Grado de Maestro en Infantil después de cursar la
306
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
asignatura “Didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa en Ed. Infantil” en la que se
aplica la metodología AICLE.
3- Comparar los resultados obtenidos por los alumnos de Grado de Maestro
en Infantil en conocimientos de la Lengua Inglesa antes y después de
cursar la asignatura “Didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa en Ed. Infantil”
impartida con el método AICLE y saber en qué grado éstos han variado.
4- Determinar si nuestros estudiantes son capaces de entender y de adquirir
los contenidos de la asignatura “Didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa en Ed.
Infantil” impartida con el método AICLE en Inglés.
5- Determinar en qué medida los estudiantes de la asignatura “Didáctica de
la Lengua Inglesa en Ed. Infantil” impartida con la metodología AICLE en
Inglés, han adquirido los contenidos de la asignatura.
6- Conocer las características personales de los alumnos que cursaron la
asignatura “Didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa en Ed. Infantil” impartida con
la metodología AICLE en Inglés, conocer su opinion, experiencia y postura
sobre cursar asignaturas en las que se utiliza la metodología AICLE.
7- A partir de los datos obtenidos, ofrecer a la comunidad educativa
(alumnos, profesores, departamentos y administraciones educativas)
datos que permitan orientar la mejora de la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de
la competencia comunicativa en Lengua Inglesa.
307
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
4. METODOLOGÍA
La metodología que se ha seguido para esta investigación experimental es un estudio correlativo, para el que se recurre a un diseño de investigación del tipo pre-test, tratamiento, pos-test. Esta metodología nos ha permitido conocer y evaluar la eficacia del método AICLE en la asignatura “Didáctica de la Lengua
Inglesa en Ed. Infantil” del Grado Maestro en Educación Infantil. Este estudio correlativo nos permite saber si el uso del método AICLE mejora o no el nivel de lengua inglesa, y en qué grado se produce esa mejoría, a la vez que los estudiantes adquieren los contenidos propios de la asignatura.
Para realizar la investigación de cómo el uso de la metodología AICLE afecta la competencia comunicativa de los alumnos en la lengua extranjera se utilizó la prueba diagnóstica DIALANG como pre-test al comienzo de la asignatura y como post-test al término de la misma, para comprobar los resultados obtenidos por los estudiantes antes y después de la aplicación de la metodología AICLE.
El pre-test y post-test consistió en realizar la prueba DIALANG. Para poder analizar los resultados de los estudiantes obtenidos tanto en el pre-test como en el post-test, se les entregó a los estudiantes unas hojas de respuesta donde anotaron los resultados obtenidos en cada uno de los ítems de los cinco aspectos de la lengua que evalúa DIALANG. Los estudiantes también contestaron un breve cuestionario en el que se les preguntaba sobre aspectos personales de
308
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
cada estudiante como género, años de estudio de la lengua extranjera, número de lenguas estudiadas, etc.
Participantes, Contexto y Tratamiento
La muestra para la investigación fue de 15 estudiantes voluntarios de un grupo de alumnos de primer curso del título del Grado de Maestro en Educación
Infantil matriculados en la asignatura “Didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa en
Educación Infantil”.
La investigación tuvo una duración de 5 meses, durante los cuales los estudiantes recibieron 200 minutos semanales de formación en “Didáctica de la
Lengua Inglesa” en inglés siguiendo la metodología AICLE.
El tratamiento (Aplicación de la metodología AICLE a la docencia de la asignatura “Didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa en Educación Infantil”) se llevó a cabo en el aula asignada para la enseñanza de esta asignatura ubicada en el Aula número 2 del Edificio “Aulario 2”. El cuestionario también fue completado por los estudiantes en la misma ubicación.
309
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
Herramientas de investigación
Prueba DIALANG: Pre-test y Post-test
DIALANG es un sistema informático en línea para evaluar el nivel de 14 lenguas europeas, según el Marco Común Europeo de Referencia de las
Lenguas. Este sistema evalúa el nivel de comprensión oral, expresión escrita, comprensión lectora, vocabulario y estructuras gramaticales de cada lengua.
DIALANG fue la prueba utilizada como pre-test y post-test para medir en qué grado el nivel de Inglés de los alumnos había variado antes y después cursar la asignatura ·”Didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa en Educación Infantil” en la que se aplicó la meodología AICLE.
La hipótesis de la que parte la presente investigación es: “La aplicación del método AICLE en la asignatura Didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa en Ed. Infantil del título de grado Maestro en Educación Infantil, mejorará significativamente el nivel de lengua inglesa de los estudiantes a la vez que adquieren los contenidos propios de la asignatura, señalados de anetemano y precisados en la guía did´ctica de la asignatura”.
Las variables que intervienen en este estudio son: nivel de lengua inglesa
(variable dependiente) y el método AICLE (variable independiente).
310
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
Descripción de las partes del sistema DIALANG
El sistema DIALANG comienza con la selección del idioma que se quiere evaluar. Una vez seleccionado el idioma, la prueba comienza con un Placement
Test (Examen de nivel) para conocer el nivel del estudiante según los niveles del
MCERL y orientar el grado de dificultad de las preguntas del test en cada una de sus partes. El Placement Test consta de 75 “palabras”, algunas de las cuales son reales y otras inventadas. Todas las “palabras” se presentan como verbos y el estudiante tiene que reconocerlas como reales o inventadas.
Una vez realizado el Placement Test, el estudiante pasa a realizar cada una de las 5 pruebas de las que consta la evaluación diagnóstica, pudiendo elegir la prueba por la que desea comenzar: listening, reading, writing, vocabulary o grammar. Antes de realizar las pruebas de listening, reading, writing el alumno puede realizar la autoevaluación de estos aspectos lingüísticos. La realización de las autoevaluaciones informa al estudiante sobre el nivel que cree tener, según el MCERL, en cada uno de esos aspectos lingüísticos.
La autoevaluación consta de 18 afirmaciones expresadas en capacidades
(I can). El estudiante tiene que leer cada una de ellas y decir si cree que es capaz o no de realizarlas.
Una vez realizada la auto-evaluación, el estudiante pasa a contestar los
ítems de cada una de las tres pruebas mencionadas anteriormente. Cada una de estas pruebas consta de 30 ítems que presentan formatos variados:
311
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
respuesta múltiple, escritura de enunciados, preguntas de respuesta breve y menú desplegable. El sistema proporciona al estudiante observaciones sobre sus respuestas, tras responder cada ítem o al finalizar cada una de las pruebas, a la elección del estudiante. Al finalizar los ítems de cada prueba, el sistema compara el nivel que el usuario había obtenido en la autoevaluación realizada antes de la prueba y el nivel real obtenido tras la corrección de la prueba. Si el nivel real no coincide con el nivel obtenido en la autoevaluación, el sistema aconseja cómo mejorar el nivel siguiendo el Marco Común Europeo de
Referencia para las Lenguas.
La primera prueba es de Listening (comprensión oral). Antes de realizar la prueba el estudiante lleva a cabo la autoevaluación y a continuación el alumno comienza a contestar las 30 preguntas de comprensión oral de las que consta la prueba. Para contestar todas las preguntas, primero se pide al alumno que lea las posibles respuestas y a continuación que pulse el botón para escuchar el audio, tras el que debe responder a la pregunta sobre el audio. Para responder a las preguntas se usan diferentes modelos de respuesta:
29 ítems de respuesta múltiple (16 con 3 opciones posibles, 12 con
4 opciones y 1 con 5 opciones. En 2 de los ítems hay que contestar
2 cuestiones en cada uno de ellos).
1 ítem dónde se debe escribir la palabra más adecuada para hueco
de la frase.
312
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
Una vez hecha la prueba de comprensión oral, el sistema realiza una corrección de las respuestas dadas por el estudiante y le informa de las preguntas donce ha cometido errores y qué aspecto de la comprensión oral trabaja cada pregunta. El sistema evalúa 3 aspectos de la comprensión lectora:
Identificación de la idea principal (necesario para contestar 20
ítems correctamente).
Hacer inferencias (necesario para contestar 8 ítems
correctamente).
Escuchar en detalle (necesario para contestar 2 ítems
correctamente).
Por último, el sistema compara el nivel que el estudiante había obtenido en la autoevaluación realizada antes de la prueba y el nivel real obtenido tras la corrección de la prueba, tal y como ya hemos eñalado más ariiba.
La segunda prueba es de Writing (expresión escrita). Al igual que en la prueba anterior, antes de realizar la prueba, el estudiante puede realizar la autoevaluación, esta vez sobre su nivel de expresión escrita. La autoevaluación vuelve a constar de 18 afirmaciones expresadas en capacidades (I can). El estudiante lee cada afirmación y responde si es capaz o no de realizarlas. Con las respuestas de la autoevaluación, se da al alumno el nivel según el MCERL que éste cree tener en expresión escrita.
313
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
Esta prueba también consta de 30 ítems de diferentes tipos. Los tipos de preguntas para evaluar la expresión escrita se especifican a continuación:
2 ítems en los que se lee el texto y se elige la respuesta correcta
entre las opciones del menú desplegable (4 posibles opciones).
6 ítems en los que se seleccionan las frases más adecuada para
los huecos:
5 ítems en los que se elige la palabra o grupo de palabras más
adecuadas para el hueco de la frase.
4 ítems en los que se debe localizar la palabra del párrafo que no
corresponde al estilo del mismo.
2 ítems en los que hay que encontrar el error gramatical del párrafo
y escribir la palabra correcta parra corregir el error.
6 ítems en los que se debe completar el hueco del párrafo usando
una palabra que corresponda con la inicial y la definición dada.
3 ítems en los que se escriben las palabras dadas en los huecos
de un párrafo.
1 ítem en el que se completa una frase con un grupo de palabras
usando 2 palabras dadas.
1 ítem en el que se escribir una palabra en el hueco de la frase
usando la inicial dada.
Una vez realizada la prueba de expresión escrita, el sistema corrige las respuestas dadas por del estudiante y le informa sobre las preguntas en las que
314
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
ha cometido errores y qué aspecto de la expresión escrita trabaja cada pregunta.
El sistema evalúa 3 aspectos de la expresión escrita:
Adecuación (necesario para contestar 8 ítems correctamente).
Organización textual (necesario para contestar 9 ítems
correctamente).
Precisión (necesario para contestar 13 ítems correctamente).
Por último, el sistema compara el nivel que el estudiante había obtenido en la autoevaluación realizada antes de la prueba y el nivel real obtenido tras la corrección de la prueba. Si el nivel real no coincide con el nivel obtenido, el sistema aconseja cómo mejorar el nivel obtenido siguiendo el Marco Común
Europeo de Referencia para las Lenguas.
La tercera prueba es de Reading (comprensión lectora). Al igual que en las pruebas anteriores, antes de realizar la prueba de comprensión lectora el estudiante puede realizar la autoevaluación sobre el nivel de expresión escrita.
Una vez más la autoevaluación consta de 18 afirmaciones expresadas en capacidades (I can). El estudiante lee cada afirmación y dice responde si es capaz o no de realizarlas. Con las respuestas de la autoevaluación, se da al alumno el nivel según el MCERL que éste cree tener en comprensión lectora.
Esta prueba también consta de 30 ítems de diferentes tipos. Los tipos de
ítems para evaluar la comprensión lectora son los siguientes:
315
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
20 ítems dónde se lee el texto y se elige la respuesta correcta de
entre las 4 o 5 dadas.
1 ítem dónde se selecciona la pregunta más adecuada para
completar el hueco de una entrevista.
3 ítems en los que se elige la frase más adecuada entre las frases
dadas para completar el hueco de un párrafo.
4 ítems en los que se selecciona el título más correcto entre los
títulos dados para la frase dada.
1 ítem en el que hay que escribir la palabra más adecuada en el
hueco del párrafo usando un derivado de una palabra dada.
Al finalizar la prueba de comprensión lectora, el sistema corrige las respuestas dadas por del estudiante y le informa de las preguntas dónde ha cometido errores y qué aspecto de la comprensión lectora trabaja cada pregunta.
El sistema evalúa 3 aspectos de la comprensión lectora:
Hacer inferencias (necesario para contestar 20 ítems
correctamente).
Identificar la idea principal (necesario para contestar 9 ítems
correctamente).
Leer en detalle (necesario para contestar 1 ítem correctamente).
Por último el sistema compara, cmo en los casos anteriores, el nivel que el estudiante había obtenido en la autoevaluación realizada antes de la prueba y el nivel real obtenido tras la corrección de la prueba. Si el nivel real no coincide 316
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
con el nivel obtenido, el sistema aconseja cómo mejorar el nivel obtenido siguiendo el Marco Común Europeo de Referencia para las Lenguas.
La cuarta prueba es de Vocabulary (vocabulario). Esta prueba también consta de 30 ítems de diferentes tipos. Los tipos de ítems para evaluar los conocimientos de vocabulario en lengua inglesa son:
6 ítems donde se elige la palabra más adecuada para completar el
hueco de una frase.
7 ítems en los que se escribe la palabra más adecuada para
completar el hueco de una frase usando la inicial dada.
5 ítems en los que se completa la palabra incompleta de una frase.
2 ítems en los que se selecciona la palabra que corresponde a la
definición dada entre 4 posibles respuestas.
3 ítems en los que hay que elegir el sinónimo de la palabra(s)
dada(s) entre 4 posibles respuestas.
1 ítem en el que se escribe una palabra usando la inicial dada que
corresponde a la definición que se da.
1 ítem en el que hay que escribir una palabra usando las primeras
letras dadas para completar el hueco de una frase.
1 ítem en el que hay que escribir el antónimo de la palabra en
mayúsculas de la frase.
1 ítem en el que hay que escribir una palabra para completar el
hueco de un diálogo.
317
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
2 ítems en el que se pide escribir la forma derivada de una palabra
para completar hueco de una frase.
1 ítem en el que hay que completar el hueco de una frase
escribiendo la palabra que falta.
Al finalizar la prueba de vocabulario, el sistema corrige las respuestas dadas por del estudiante y le informa sobre los errores cometidos y los aspecto del vocabulario que cada pregunta evaluaba. El sistema evalúa 4 aspectos del vocabulario:
Combinación de palabras (necesario para contestar 6 ítems
correctamente).
Significado (necesario para contestar 11 ítems correctamente).
Formación de palabras (necesario para contestar 7 ítems
correctamente).
Relaciones semánticas (necesario para contestar 6 ítems
correctamente).
La quinta y última prueba es de Structures (estructuras gramaticales).
Esta prueba también consta de 30 preguntas de diferentes tipos. Los tipos de preguntas para evaluar los conocimientos sobre las estructuras gramaticales de la lengua inglesa son:
15 ítems en los que se elige la palabra más adecuada para
completar el hueco de una frase:
318
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
. Entre 3 posibles opciones (12 ítems).
. Entre 4 posibles opciones (2 ítems).
. Entre 5 posibles opciones (1 ítem).
5 ítems en los que se elige el grupo de palabras más adecuado
para completar el hueco de una frase:
. Entre 3 posibles opciones (2 ítems).
. Entre 4 posibles opciones (3 ítems).
2 ítems en los que hay que escribir una frase con:
. 3 palabras dadas (1 ítem).
. 6 palabras dadas (1 ítem).
2 ítems en los que hay que escribir el derivado de una palabra para
completar el hueco de una frase.
2 ítems en los que hay que escribir la forma verbal correcta del
verbo dado para completar el hueco de una frase.
1 ítem en el que hay que escribir el plural irregular de un sustantivo
para completar el hueco de una frase.
2 ítems en los que hay que escribir el mejor grupo de palabras para
completar el hueco de una frase.
1 ítem en el que hay que escribir una palabra para completar el
hueco de una frase.
Al finalizar la prueba de estructuras gramaticales, el sistema corrige las respuestas dadas por del estudiante y le informa sobre los errores cometidos y
319
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
qué aspectos de las estructuras gramaticales trabaja cada pregunta. El sistema evalúa 6 aspectos de las estructuras gramaticales:
Morfología de palabras (necesario para contestar 5 ítems
correctamente).
Partes del discurso oral (necesario para contestar 5 ítems
correctamente)
Pronombres (necesario
para contestar 4 ítems correctamente).
Adjetivos y adverbios (necesario para contestar 1 ítem
correctamente).
Sustantivos (necesario para contestar 4 ítems correctamente).
Signos de puntuación (necesario para contestar 2 ítems
correctamente).
5. RESULTADOS
Los resultados obtenidos en cada una de las partes del studio que se ha realizado, ponen de manifiesto que el uso de la metodología AICLE ha ayudado a los estudiantes de la asignatura “Didáctica de la Lengua Inglés en Educación
Infantil” a mejorar durante el curso su competencia comunicativa en Inglés, a la vez que han obtenido resultados favorable en la evaluación de los contenidos curriculares de la asignatura.
320
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
Para el análisis estadístico de los datos obtenidos en las pruebas desarrolladas se utilizó el paquete estadístico de aplicaiones IBM SPSS 19 y a partir de dicho análisis obtener los estadísticos descriptivos adecuados de las principales variables de la investigación, el cálculo de la desviación estándar, la frecuencia minima y las puntuaciones y los porcentajes de los datos máximos.
Se analizó la fiabilidad del cuestionario mediante el coeficiente de consistencia interna alfa de Cronbach, que alcanzó el valor de 0,611, lo que indica una fiabilidad moderada.
También se calculó el coeficiente de correlación mediante el uso de la prueba de Pearson para determinar el grado de intensidad de la relación entre las variables.
Prueba DIALANG
En primer lugar, vamos a analizar los resultados de la autoevaluación de los estudiantes. Si comparamos los resultados del pre-test y post-test, podemos ver que tres de los quince alumnos mejoraron su puntuación en esta prueba.
En segundo lugar, cuando nos fijamos en los resultados de las pruebas de “Comprensión oral”, podemos observar que sólo un estudiante mejoró su puntuación en esta destreza. Es notable que sólo un estudiante mostrase mejoría en esta destreza, porque una de los principales razones de impartir la
321
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
metodología AICLE en la asignatura era para mejorar el nivel oral de Inglés del alumnado. Esta falta de éxito puede ser debido a la duración del curso. El hecho de que la duración del curso sea de sólo 60 horas de duración puede ser un factor importante ya que los estudiantes pueden necesitar más exposición a la lengua para conseguir mejorar sus resultados en la prueba de comprensión auditiva.
También hay que tener en cuenta que la mayoría de los alumnos sólo han obtenido un A1 en “Comprensión oral”, nivel muy bajo teniendo en cuenta que los estudiantes han recibido una media de quince años de clases de Inglés. El resto de los estudiantes, aproximadamente el 10%, presentan un nivel A2 o B1 en la prueba de comprensión oral.
En tercer lugar, al analizar los resultados obtenidos en la prueba de
“Escritura”, podemos observer que dos alumnos han mejorado su nivel en esta prueba en el post-test.
En general, los resultado obtenidos por los alumnos en “Escritura” son un poco más altos que en la prueba de “Comprensión oral”. Aunque la mayoría de los estudiantes obtienen un nivel A1 (46,6%), el porcentaje de alumnos que obtiene un nivel B1 o B2 aumenta un 25 % respectivamente.
Continuando con el análisis de los resultados obtenidos por nuestros alumnos, en las siguientes tres destrezas evaluadas, se obserba que el número de estudiantes que han aumentado sus puntuaciones también aumenta
322
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
levemente con respecto a las dos destrezas analizadas con anterioridad: seis estudiantes han mejorado sus resultados en “Lectura”, cuatro en “Vocabulario” y cinco en “Estructuras gramaticales”.
Es conveniente resaltar que DIALANG no proporciona información sobre la mejoría de los alumnos logradas dentro del mismo nivel. En muchos casos los estudiantes presentan el mismo nivel en el pre-test y en el post-test, y esto no significa necesariamente que los estudiantes no hayan mejorado su nivel en absoluto, sino sólo que el avance dentro del mismo nivel no era el suficiente como para pasar al siguiente nivel y que DIALANG lo registre.
Cuestionario
La fiabilidad interna del cuestionario, de los datos obtenidos y del análisis de los mismos se analizó mediante el Coeficiente de consitencia interna, alfa de
Cronbach, que alcanzó el valor de .611, lo que indica que la fiabilidad es razonable.
Los aspectos más relevantes obtenidos del análisis de las respuestas del alumnado al cuestionario son:
- La totalidad de la población que participó en la investigación eran mujeres.
323
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
- La mayoría del alumnado había estudiado tres lenguas pero sólo hablaban dos de ellas.
- La mayoría del alumnado había estudiado Inglés durante 15 años o más.
- La mayoría del alumnado veía programas de television en Inglés algunas veces.
- La mayoría del alumnado da mucha importancia a poder comunicarse en Inglés.
- La mayoría del alumnado cree tener un nivel oral y escrito superior al que obtiene en la prueba DIALANG.
- A pesar de haber estudiado Inglés durante 15 años o más, la mitad afirma no haber recibido nunca ninguna clase en inglés y la otra mitad haber recibido una.
- Todas las alumnas afirman que han asistido a la totalidad de las clases y que la asignatura “Didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa en Educación Infantil” se ha impartido en Inglés.
- La mayoría dice haber notado algo de mejoría en su competencia comunicativa en inglés tras el curso y algunas dicen haber notado una gran mejoría.
324
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
- Antes de cursar la asignatura muy pocas alumnas se sentían capaces de dar Inglés en Infantil mientras que al finalizer la asignatura la gran mayoría se sentían capaces, bastante capaces y muy capaces de hacerlo.
- La mayoría de las alumnas afirnan no haber tenido dificultad en seguir el la asignatura en Inglés y el resto, haber tenido muy poca dificultad.
Evaluación del alumnado
Como esta investigación tenía un objetivo doble:
- Determinar si los estudiantes al cursar la asignatura “Didáctica de la
Lengua Inglesa en Educación Infantil” mejoraban su nivel de Inglés y
- Determinar si los estudiantes eran capaces de adquirir los contenidos de la asignatura impartida en un idioma extranjero,
La principal herramienta utilizada para comprobar hasta qué punto nuestros estudiantes universitarios habían adquirido la contenidos de la asignatura han sido las notas que los estudiantes han obtenido en las diferentes partes que conformaban la evaluación de la asignatura.
Resumiendo las notas obtenidas por el grupo de estudiantes, la mayoría adquirió los contenidos del curso bastante bien, teniendo en cuenta que la calificación final media obtenida en la asignatura fue 7.29.
325
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
Una sóla aluma no aprobó la asignatura, obteniendo un 4,88 de nota final.
No obstente, esta calificación, a pesar de ser insuficiente para aprobar la asignrrua, señala un nivel relativo medio en la adquisición de los contenidos del curso.
La calificación final más alta fue de 8.84, obtenida por una estudiante, y otras dos estudiantes obtuvieron 8.37 y 8.19, notas finales bastante buenas teniendo en cuenta que para la mitad del grupo era la primera vez que cursaban una asignatura en Inglés y para la otra mitad la segunda vez.
6. CONCLUSIONES
Aplicar la metodología AICLE (Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y
Lenguas Extranjeras) en la asignatura “Didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa en
Educación Infantil” ha sido una gran aventura para mí y también para aquellos estudiantes que cursaron la asignatura.
Comencé la aventura buscando los orígenes de la metodología y continué con la revisión de su uso y aplicación en los países europeos, investigando el marco legislativo europeo (a través del cual este método se ha extendido en la mayor parte de los países europeos). También investigué su uso en los niveles de la educación obligatoria en España y su desarrollo en la educación superior, descubriendo la aplicación y procedimientos desarrollados de la metodología
326
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
AICLE en la actualidad, y finalmente, pasé a la planificación del método en el desarrollo de la asignatura “Didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa en Educación Infantil” para el alumando de primer curso del Grado de Maestro en Educación Infantil en la Universidad de Alicante, lo que ha resultado ser un proyecto muy largo y complicado.
La conclusión final a la que los resultados de esta investigación me han llevado es principalmente que en España tenemos una enorme necesidad de modificar los métodos y enfoques tradicionales para la enseñanza de Inglés que se han utilizado hasta ahora en todos los niveles educativos, ya que no ayudan a los estudiantes a lograr la competencia comunicativa necesaria en Inglés, competencia que se busca desde los planes de estudio de los curriculums de las administraciones educativas, pero que, en general no se obtiene. Hay otros métodos que promueven y desarrollan la competencia comunicativa en Inglés, como se ha mostrado en este estudio, así que ¿por qué no usarlos?
El profesorado en nuestro país tiene que buscar y aplicar (y no sólo en algunos centros) métodos innovadores para la enseñanza de Inglés, ya que los que se vienen usando tradicionalmente no han ayudado a nuestros estudiantes a adquirir la competencia comunicativa necesaria, en especial en lo que se refiere a las destrezas de uso de la lengua oral en situaciones reales de ciomunicación. Necesitamos nuevos métodos a través de los que la comunicación en Inglés sea una realidad desde el primer día de clase y no sólo
327
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
un objetivo lejano que los estudiantes serán capaces de alcanzar en un futuro lejano; meta que hemos visto que ni siquiera llega a alcanzarse después de tantos años cursando la asignatura de Inglés.
La aplicación de la metodología AICLE a lo largo de esta asignatura y el estudio de investigaciones llevadas a cabo para desarrollar esta tesis, me han dado la oportunidad de explorar y descubrir la existencia de métodos que promueven la comunicación y que realmente ayudan a los estudiantes a aprender y a usar el Inglés para comunicarse.
Uno de los retos más difíciles para el profesorado a la hora de enseñar la
Lengua Inglesa supone el crear un contexto en el que los estudiantes sientan la necesidad de comunicarse en Inglés. Usar la metodología AICLE en áreas no lingüísticas ya proporciona ese contexto significativo para el estudiante, y aunque suene muy difícil para la mayoría de los estudiantes el hecho de seguir una asignatura en un segundo idioma en el que se evaluarán los contenidos aprendidos, no es imposible si se emplea la metodología adecuada.
El Inglés se ha utilizado para aprender contenidos, y a medida que el alumnado ha aprendido contenidos también han aprendido la Lengua Inglesa a través de su uso en situaciones reales de comunicación, por lo tanto de una manera pragmática, significativa e inductiva.
328
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
Los resultados de esta investigación han demostrado que los estudiantes que han cursado la asignatura “Didáctica de la Lengua Inglesa en Educación
Infantil” han mejorado significativamente su nivel de Inglés en diferentes habilidades y elementos de esta lengua gracias a la metodología AICLE. A pesar de que no se dedicase tiempo a explicar los contenidos lingüísticos de la lengua inglesa de una manera explícita a lo largo de la asignatura, los estudiantes mejoraron su nivel de lengua inglesa, gracias a la oportunidad que se les brindó de usar el Inglés y el hecho de estar expuestos a la lengua inglesa a través de la asignatura.
Los inconvenientes del uso de métodos tradicionales que no funcionan son multiples: nuestros estudiantes no adquieren fluidez en un idioma extranjero, y del mismo modo estos métodos tienden a dañar la autoestima de los estudiantes en cuanto a la forma en que perciben su capacidad para aprender una lengua extranjera. En la clase tradicional de Inglés, los estudiantes no tienen la oportunidad de manifestar dfestrezas prácticas para comunicarse en Inglés ya que ningún momento de las clases de inglés se dedica a la comunicación. Lo que los estudiantes aprenden después de más de una década de asistir a clases de inglés es que después de dedicar tantas horas al estudio de Inglés, aún no son capaces de comunicarse, ni siquiera a un nivel básico, por lo que asumen que la razón debe ser que ellos no son buenos en el aprendizaje idiomas. Esa es la percepción que la mayoría de los estudiantes españoles tienen respecto a su capacidad de aprender Inglés.
329
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
Nosotros, como maestros y profesores de inglés, tenemos la responsabilidad de proporcionar a nuestros estudiantes las oportunidades suficientes para escuhar la lengua inglesa, y las oportunidades para que ellos escuchen y practiquen comunicándose en Inglés en los contextos adecuados, porque como dijo Rothfuss "La práctica hace al maestro". Sin los contextos significativos y sin las oportunidades suficientes para que nuestros estudiantes desarrollen habilidades para comunicarse en inglés, ¿para qué queremos que nuestros alumnus dominen las estructuras gramaticales si no saben cómo y cuándo usarlas porque nunca han tenido la necesidad ni la oportunidad de hacerlo?
En este estudio, se ha demostrado que los estudiantes españoles de la
Comunida Valenciana que estudian el Grado de Maestro de Educación Infantil en la Universidad de Alicante han sido capaces de asimilar los contenidos de la asignatura “Didáctica de la lengua inglesa en Educación Infantil” en un idioma extranjero en el que no tenían fluidez, y además han sido capaces de aprender cómo utilizarlo correctamente al mismo tiempo. Al finalizar la asignatura, los estudiantes reconocieron que el hecho de que la asignatura fuera impartida en inglés no era un obstáculo para aprender y asimilar los contenidos de la misma.
Por el contrario, los contenidos de la asignatura y su desarrollo en el aula crearon un espacio abierto y dinámico de comunicación en inglés, lo que les permitió mejorar de manera significativa su competencia comunicativa en esta lengua,
330
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
convirtiéndose la comunicación en una lengua extranjera en algo útil y significativo.
También, el estar expuestos a la lengua inglesa y el tener que usarla ayudó a los estudiantes a mejorar su nivel de Inglés de una manera reflexiva pues el uso real de la lengua implica también la necesidad de reflexionaar sobre sus peculiaridades gramaticales y su uso normativo.
Los resultados presentados en este estudio se obtuvieron después de que los estudiantes finalizasen la asignatura con una duración de 60 horas, en la que se emplearon los principios de la metodología AICLE. Por lo tanto, debemos preguntarnos, ¿qué resultados podríamos obtener si empezasemos a utilizar la metodología AICLE en Educación Infantil cuando los estudiantes comienzan a aprender Inglés?
Creo que los programas plurilingües de la Comunidad Valenciana están en el camino correcto para conseguir que nuestros estudiantes logren ser bilingües o trilingües, siempre y cuando todos los estudiantes tengan la oportunidad de cursar al menos un área no lingüística en Inglés a lo largo de todas las etapas educativas, desde la ducación infantil hasta el final de sus estudios. Hoy en día esto sólo sucede en algunas escuelas que deciden ofrecer este plan de estudios. La nueva reforma educative LOMCE abre la puerta para que las escuelas puedan ofrecer esta opción si quieren, pero para las
331
8. RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES EN ESPAÑOL
administraciones educativas, todavía no es una obligación sino sólo una opción.
Por lo tanto, por ahora, el bilingüismo activo en los estudiantes dependerá de la buena voluntad de los directores de los centros que desarrollen programas plurilingües y que puedan encontrar maestros y profesores que sean aptos y capaces de llevarlos a cabo.
.
332
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
300
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education. Retrieved in 22 September, from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/7705/BES- quality-teaching-diverse-students.pdf
Alderson, J.C. (2000). Technology in testing: The present and future. System, 28(4), 593-603.
Alderson, J. C., & Huhta, A. (July, 2005). The development of a suite of computer- based diagnostic tests based on the Common European Framework. Language Testing, 22(3), 301-320.
Alderson, J.C., & McIntyre, D. (2006). Implementing and evaluating a self- assessment mechanism for the web-based Language and Style course. Language and Literature, 15(3), 291-306.
Anderson, J. C. (2006). Diagnosing Foreign Language Proficiency. Continium, New York.
Barcelona. European Council. (2002). Presidency Conclusions of 15 March 2002. Retrieved in November 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/investinresearch/pdf/download_en/barcelona_european_ council.pdf
Barcelona. UNESCO. (1996). Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights. Retrieved in 5 November 2012, from http://www.unesco.org/cpp/uk/declarations/linguistic.pdf
301 335 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beckett, G. H., & Gonzalez, V. (winter, 2004). Content-Based ESL Writing Curriculum: A Language Socialization Model.National Association for Bilingual Education. Journal of Research and Practice,2(1), 161-175.
Beeckmans, R., Eyckmans, J., Janssens, V., Dufranne, M. & Van de Velde, H. (2001). Examining the Yes/No vocabulary test: some methodological issues in theory and practice.Language Testing, 18(3), 235-274.
Bentley, K. (2010). The Teaching Knowledge Test Course CLIL Module. University of Cambridge in collaboration with Cambridge ESOL.
Bertaux, P., Coonan, C., Frigols-Martín, M.J., & Mehisto, P. (2009). The CLIL Teacher’s Competences Grid. LinguaRed: Red Profesional de Formación para el Profesorado de Centros Bilingües.Retrieved in 8 May 2013, from http://ulises.cepgranada.org/moodle/mod/page/view.php?id=14870
Brewster, J. (September 2009). Thinking skills for CLIL. One Stop English. Retrieved in 28 October 2012, from http://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/methodology/study-skills-for-clil/thinking- skills-for-clil/501197.article
Brussels. European Commission. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Eurydice European Unit. Retrieved in 4 June 2013, from http://www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/eurydice/CLIL_EN.pdf
302 336 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brussels. European Council. (1995). Council Resolution of 31 March 1995 on improving and diversifying language learning and teaching within the education systems of the European Union. Official Journal, C 207, 1–5. Retrieved in 8 November 2012, from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995Y0812( 01):EN:HTML
Brussels. European Council. (2002). COUNCIL RESOLUTION of 14 February 2002 on the promotion of linguistic diversity and language learning in the framework of the implementation of the objectives of the European Year of Languages 2001. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 50, 1. Retrieved in 2 June 2011, from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2002:050:0001: 0002:EN:PDF
Brussels. European Council. (2005). Council of the European Union Presidency Conclusions. Retrieved in 16 May 2012, from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/853 49.pdf
Brussels. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved in 25 April 2012, from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/framework_en.pdf
Brussels. Council of the European Union. (2001). Report of the Education Council of 12 February 2001 on “The concrete future objectives of education and training systems”, 5680/01 EDUC 18. Retrieved in 1 October 2012, from
303 337 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.aic.lv/bolona/Bologna/contrib/EU/report%20on%20the%20concre te%20objectives%20of%20ed%20sys.pdf
Brussels. Council of the European Union. (2001). Report of the Education Council of 14 February 2001 on “The concrete future objectives of education and training systems”, 5680/01 EDUC 18. Retrieved in 1 October 2012, from http://www.aic.lv/bolona/Bologna/contrib/EU/report%20on%20the%20concre te%20objectives%20of%20ed%20sys.pdf
Brussels. European Commission. (1995). White Paper on Education and Training - Teaching and Learning - Towards the Learning Society. [COM Document] Retrieved in 20 June 2014, from http://aei.pitt.edu/1132/
Canale, M., & Swain M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. Oxford University Press.
Cannes. European Council. (1995). Council conclusions of 12 June 1995 on linguistic diversity and multilingualism in the European Union. Retrieved in 1 October 2012, from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/002 11-C.EN5.htm
Carretero, M. (1998). Procesos de Enseñanza y Aprendizaje (19). Buenos Aires: Aique.
304 338 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Comunidad Valenciana. CEFIRE. (2013). Knowledge theories supporting CLIL. Retrieved in 2 June 2013, from http://cefire.edu.gva.es/pluginfile.php/498539/mod_imscp/content/1/index.ht ml
Comunidad Valenciana. Presidencia de la Generalidad. (1983). Ley 4/1983, de 23 de noviembre, de uso y enseñanza del valenciano. Diario Oficial de la Generalitat Valenciana, 133, 1460-1473. Retrieved in 12 September 2012, from http://www.docv.gva.es/datos/1983/12/01/pdf/1983_802514.pdf
Comunidad Valenciana. Consellería de Cultura, Educación y Ciencia. (1990). Orden de 23 de noviembre de 1990, por la que se desarrolla el Decreto 79/1984, de 30 de julio, sobre la aplicación de la Ley 4/1983, de uso y enseñanza del valenciano. Diario Oficial de la Comunidad Valenciana, 1496. Retrieved in 12 September 2012, from http://www.docv.gva.es/portal/ficha_disposicion_pc.jsp?sig=0631/1991&L=1
Comunidad Valenciana. Consellería de Cultura, Educación y Ciencia. (1990). CORRECCION de errores a la Orden de 23 de noviembre de 1990, por la que se desarrolla el Decreto 79/1974, de 30 de julio, sobre la aplicación de la Ley 4/1983, de Uso y Enseñanza del Valenciano. Diario Oficial de la Comunidad Valenciana, 1583. Retrieved in 12 September 2012, from http://www.docv.gva.es/portal/ficha_disposicion_pc.jsp?sig=2083/1991&L=1
Comunidad Valenciana. Consellería de Cultura, Educación y Ciencia. (1998). Orden de 30 de junio de 1998, por la que se establecen los requisitos básicos, criterios y procedimientos para aplicar en los centros educativos un programa de educación bilingüe enriquecido por la incorporación precoz de un lengua extranjera, como lengua vehicular, desde el primer ciclo de la
305 339 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
educación primaria. Diario Oficial de la Comunidad Valenciana,3285. Retrieved in 12 September 2012, from http://www.docv.gva.es/datos/1998/07/14/pdf/1998_X5768.pdf
Comunidad Valenciana. Consellería de Educación. (2007). Orden de 28 de agosto de 2007, por la que se regula el horario de Educación Primaria. Diario Oficial de la Comunidad Valenciana, 5594, 34757-34765. Retrieved in 19 November 2011, from http://www.docv.gva.es/datos/2007/09/07/pdf/2007_10990.pdf
Comunidad Valenciana. Consellería de Educación. (2009). Orden de 19 de mayo de 2009, por la que se establece la organización, estructura y funcionamiento de un programa experimental plurilingüe en la Comunidad Valenciana. Diario Oficial de la Comunidad Valenciana,6034. Retrieved in 12 September 2012, from http://www.docv.gva.es/portal/ficha_disposicion_pc.jsp?sig=006924/2009&L =1
Comunidad Valenciana. Consellería de Educación, Formación y Empleo. (2012). Decreto 127/2012, de 3 de agosto,por el que se regula el plurilingüismo en la enseñanza no universitaria en la Comunitat Valenciana.Diario Oficial de la Comunidad Valenciana, 6834, 23451-23459. Retrieved in 8 January 2013, from http://www.docv.gva.es/datos/2012/08/06/pdf/2012_7817.pdf
Comunidad Valenciana. Consellería de Educación, Ciencia y Deporte. (2014). Decreto 108/2014, de 4 de julio, por el que establece el currículo y desarrolla la ordenación general de la educación primaria en la Comunidad
306 340 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Valenciana. Diario Oficial de la Comunidad Valenciana,7311, 16325-16694. Retrieved in 4 August 2014, from http://www.docv.gva.es/portal/ficha_disposicion.jsp?id=26&sig=006087/201 4&L=1&url_lista=
Comunidad Valenciana. Consellería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. (2014). Resolución de 15 de julio de 2014, de las Direcciones generales de Centros y Personal Docente, y de Innovación, Ordenación y Política Lingüística, por la que se dictan las instrucciones para la organización y funcionamiento en las Escuelas de EI de segundo ciclo y colegios de EP durante el curso 2014-2015. Diario Oficial de la Comunidad Valenciana,7323, 18370- 18399. Retrieved in 2 August 2014, from http://www.docv.gva.es/datos/2014/07/23/pdf/2014_6915.pdf
Cook, V. (2002). Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Coyle, D. (1999). Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts: planning for effective classrooms. In J. Masih, (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language: Models, Methods and Outcomes. (p. 59). CiLT. Retrieved in 15 March 2012, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED454735.pdf
Coyle, D. (2008). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Motivating Learners and Teachers.Retrieved in 20 October 2012, from http://blocs.xtec.cat/clilpractiques1/files/2008/11/slrcoyle.pdf
Coyle, D., Holmes, B., & King, L. (2009) Towards an Integrated Curriculum. CLIL National Statements and Guidelines. London Policy Division. Strasbourg.
307 341 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chadwick, T. (2013). Language Awareness in Teaching. A Toolkit for Content and Language Teachers. The Cambridge Teacher series. Cambridge University Press
Chapelle, C. A. (2006). Test review. Language Testing, 23(4), 544-550.
Choong, K. P. (2006). Multicompetence and Second Language Teaching. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics,6(1), 1-3.
Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL Activities. A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Dale, L., Es, W., & Tanner, R. (2010). CLIL Skills, European Platform – internationalising education. Retrieved in 17 January 2012, from http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/clil-skill-sample.pdf
Dalton-Puffer, Ch. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Education, University of Göteborg.
Dandenault, E. (1997). Self-assessment of communicative ability: investigation of a novel tool for ESL learners. Unpublished MA thesis. Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
308 342 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Darn, S. (January, 2006). CLIL: A European Overview. ERIC. Retrieved in 17 October 2014, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED490775.pdf
Davies, A. (2003). Three heresies of language testing research. Language Testing, 20(4), 355-368.
Deller, S., & Price, C. (2007). Teaching Other Subjects Through English. Resource Books for Teachers. Oxford University Press.
DIALANG “Software”. (2006). Retrieved in 8 September 2010, from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/researchenterprise/dialang/about.htm
EF Level of English Index. (2011). Education First Ltd. Retrieved in 22 August 2012, from http://www.ef.com/sitecore/__/~/media/efcom/epi/pdf/EF-EPI- 2011.pdf
EF English Proficiency Index. (2013). Education First Ltd. Retrieved in 20 February 2013, from http://www.ef.com.es/__/~/media/efcom/epi/2014/full- reports/ef-epi-2013-report-mx.pdf
Escudero, P., & Wanrooij, F. (2010). The effect of the L1 orthography on non- native vowel perception. Language and Speech, 53, 343-365.
España. Jefatura del Estado. (1990). Ley Orgánica 1/1990, de 3 de octubre de 1990, de Ordenación General del Sistema Educativo. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 238, 28927-28942. Retrieved in September 2012, from https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1990/10/04/pdfs/A28927-28942.pdf
309 343 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
España. Jefatura del Estado. (2006). Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 106, 17158-17207. Retrieved in 6 October 2012, from http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2006/05/04/pdfs/A17158- 17207.pdf
España. Jefatura del Estado. (2013). Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembre, para la mejora de la calidad educativa. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 295, 97858-97921. Retrieved in 10 January 2013, from http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2013/12/10/pdfs/BOE-A-2013-12886.pdf
España. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. (2006). Organic Law 2/2006, may 3rd, of Education. Retrieved in December 2012, from http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Spain/Spain_LOE_eng.pdf
España. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. (2014). Real Decreto 126/2014, de 28 de febrero, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación Primaria. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 52. Retrieved in April 2014, from http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2014/03/01/pdfs/BOE-A-2014-2222.pdf
Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2013). CLIL in Higher Education. Towards a Multilingual Language Policy. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Frigols Martín, M.J. (2010). CLIL san Eoraip – CLIL in Europe.Conference on CLIL and the teaching of subjects on the second level curriculum through the medium if Irish. National University of Ireland, Galway. Retrieved in 14 May 2014, from http://www.conference.ie/content/Maria%20Jesus%20Frigols.pdf
310 344 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gleason, J. (2013). Dilemmas of Blended Language Learning: Learner and Teacher Experiences. CALICO Journal, 30(3), 323-341.
González, J. A. (2009). Promoting student autonomy through the use of the European Language Portfolio. ELT Journal, 63(4), 373-382.
Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. London: British Council Publications.
Hahta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How Long Does It Take English Learners to Attain Proficiency? Stanford University. The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Policy Report 2000- 1. Retrieved in 14 April 2012, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/research/publications/%282000%29 %20%20HOW%20LONG%20DOES%20IT%20TAKE%20ENGLISH%20LE ARNERS%20TO%20ATTAIN%20PR.pdf
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D.H. (1972). On Communicative Competence.In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (Eds.). Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Jang, E.E. (2009). Cognitive diagnostic assessment of L2 reading comprehension ability: Validity arguments for Fusion Model application to LanguEdge assessment. Language Testing, 26(1), 31-73.
311 345 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jones, A., & Sin, S. (2004). The integration of language and content: action based on a theory of task design. Journal of Applied Linguistics,1(1), 95-100.
Knoch, U. (2009). Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26(2), 275-304.
Lasagabaster, D. (September, 2009). English as a language of instruction in a bilingual university. In D. Veronesi & C. Nickenig (Eds.). Proceedings of theBi- and multilingual universities: European perspectives and beyond. Italy: BIMU07.
Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,5(1), 3-18.
Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). CLIL in Spain. Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Luoma, S., & Tarnanen, M. (2003). Creating a self-rating instrument for second language writing: from idea to implementation. Language Testing, 20, 440- 465.
McColl, H. (August, 2005). Foreign Language Learning and Inclusion: Who? Why? What? – and How?Support for Learning, 20(3), 1-10.
Marsh, D., Marsland, B., & Stenberg, K. (2001). Integrating Competencies for Working Life. Jyväskylä, Finland: Unicom.
312 346 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Marsh, D. (2002). Content and Language Integrated Learning: The European Dimension – Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. Continuing Education Centre. University of Jyväskylä. Finland: UniCOM.
Marsh, D. (2013). The CLIL Trajectory: Educational Innovation for the 21st Century iGeneration. Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de Granada.
Marsh, D., & Frigols-Martín, M. (n.d.) Introduction: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Retrieved in 19 June 2013, from https://www.uni- due.de/imperia/md/content/appliedlinguisticsdidactics/lingon/marsh__frigols __clil_intro__ts_me.pdf
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols-Martín, M. (2011). European Framework for CLIL Tearcher Education. European Centre for Modern Languages. Council of Europe.
McDougald, J. S. (2012) CLIL WORKSHOP for English Language Services (ELS) September 21. Retrieved in 24 February 2014, from https://www.academia.edu/2025502/Introduction_to_CLIL_Workshop
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Macmillan Education.
Mohan, B. (March, 1987). Language and Content. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 137- 143.
313 347 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Navés- Nogués, T., & Muñoz-Lahoz, C. (1999). Experiencias AICLE en España. In D. Marsh & G. Langé (Eds.), Implementing Content and Language Integrated Learning. TIE_CLIL Foundation Course Reader (pp. 131-144). Jyväskylä, Finland: Continuing Education Centre, University of Jyväskylä on behalf of TIE-CLIL (European Lingua Project).
Nunan, D. (2004) Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Oscarson, M. (1999). Review of R&D work in the area of self-assessment of foreign language ability. The DIALANG Project, project-internal working paper.
Papageorgiou, S. (2010). Investigating the decision-making process of standard setting participants. Language Testing, 27(2), 261-282.
Paris. OECD. Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA]. (2010). The High Cost of Low Education Performance. Retrieved in 14 December 2012, from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/44417824.pdf
Paris. UNESCO. (1998). World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty- First Century: Vision and Action. Retrieved in 12 September 2012, from http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm
Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, Teaching, and Research: A Task-Based Perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 89(iii), 339-352.
Pinkley, D. (2011). Children learning English as a Foreign Language. CLIL: Content and Language integrated Learning. UK: Pearson Longman.
314 348 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Poór, Z., Firman, C., Marek, B., Woll, B., & Mazurkievic, J. (2004). Languages for People with Special Educational Needs. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages. Retrieved in 20 September, from http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/LangSEN/pdf/wsrepA5E2004_5.pdf
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Jiménez-Catalán, R.M. (2009). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Evidence from Research in Europe. Second Language Acquisition (SLA).
Segalowitz, N. (1976). Communicative incompetence and the non-fluent bilingual. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 8(2), 122–131.
Slater, T., & Gleason, J. (2011). Integrating Language and Content: The Knowledge Framework. J. Morrison (Ed.).The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, (pp. 6-21). Retrieved in 2 June 2012, from http://www.midtesol.org/docs/MIDTESOLProceedings_2011.pdf
Strasbourg. Council of Europe. Language Policy Division. (2005). Plurilingual Education in Europe. 50 years of international co-operation. Retrieved in 1 October 2012, from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/plurinlingaleducation_en.pdf
Tang, T. (spring, 1994). Teacher Collaboration in Integrating Language and Content. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 11(2), 100-116.
TIMSS. (2011). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies. Retrieved in June 2013, from
315 349 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/ievaluacion/internacional/inee-timss 2011.- marcos-de-la-evaluacion.pdf?documentId=0901e72b8127e807
Vez, J.M. (2007). De políticas (y politiquillas) del EEES y competencias idiomáticas en el grado de maestro. Lenguaje y textos, 25, 13-42.
Wolff, D. (2007). Bridging the gap between school and working life. In D. Marsh, & D. Wolf, (Eds.), Diverse contexts – Converging goals: CLIL in Europe (pp. 15-25). Frankfurt.
Wolff, D. (2013). On the importance of CLIL in the context of the debate on plurilingual education in the European Union in Knowledge theories supporting CLIL. CEFIRE. (pp. 38-39). Retrieved in 12 June 2014, from http://cefire.edu.gva.es/pluginfile.php/498539/mod_imscp/content/1/index.ht ml
Zurek, O. (2012). Teaching Mathematics through English. Mathematics as a CLIL subject. Palacky University Olomouc. Faculty of Education. Retrieved in 15 September 2012, from http://theses.cz/id/gh1572/Diplomka_Zurek_Ondrej.pdf
316 350 10. ANNEX
318
ANNEX INDEX
Annex I: Undergraduates’ Final Course Questionnaire…………………………. 355
Annex II: Multiple Choice Test Sample……………………………………………. 361
Annex III: Course Contents Group Oral Presentation Grading Chart…………… 365
Annex IV: Making Storybook & Storybook Presentation Instructions…………… 369
Annex V: Didactic Unit Correcting Guide………………………………………….. 373
Annex VI: English–Spanish Education and Assessment Glossary…………….. 377
Annex VII: Glossary for ESL EFL Teaching……………………………………….. 405
Annex VIII: Course Bibliography…………………………………………………… 429
320
ANNEX I
Undergraduates’ Final Course
Questionnaire
321
322
10. ANNEX
QUESTIONNAIRE
1. How old are you? a) between 18-20 b) between 21-25 c) between 26-30 d) between 31-40 e) more than 41
2. What gender are you? a) male b) female
3. How many languages have you studied? a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) more than 4
4. How many languages do you speak? a) 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) more than 4
323 357 10. ANNEX
5. For how many years have you studied English? a) between 1-5 b) between 6-10 c) between 11-15 d) more than 16
6. How often do you watch programs, series or movies in original version? a) usually b) very often c) sometimes d) never
7. How important is communicating in English for you? a) very little b) little c) indifferent d) important e) a lot
8. What oral communication level (comprehension and expression) do you think you have in English? a) very low b) low c) medium d) high e) very high
324 358 10. ANNEX
9. What written communication level (comprehension and expression) do you think you have in English? a) very low b) low c) medium d) high e) very high
10. How many courses have you followed in English previously? a) none b) 1 c) 2 d) 3 e) more than 3
11. How often have you attended this course? a) 25% of the course b) 50% of the course c) 75% of the course d) 100% of the course
12. What percentage of this course has been in English? a) 25% of the course b) 50% of the course c) 75% of the course d) 100% of the course
325 359 10. ANNEX
13. Do you think that taking this course in English has improved your English level? a) very little b) little c) indifferent d) some e) a lot
14. Did you feel capable to teach English to your future students before taking this course? a) no b) very little c) yes d) quite capable e) very capable
15. Do you feel capable to teach English to your future students after taking this course? a) no b) very little c) yes d) quite capable e) very capable
16. Has it been difficult to follow the course in English? a) no b) very little c) yes d) quite difficult e) very difficult
326 360
ANNEX II
Multiple Choice Test Sample
327
328
10. Which are the 3 stages of evaluation? English Language Didactics in Infant Education Test 2 - A a) initial, direct, summative b) initial, formative, summative Name: ______Surnames: ______c) initial, indirect, formative 11. Which is nowadays the most widespread method of assessment? 1. What are the teachers supposed to do nowadays? a) direct a) Teach and help students learn how to learn. b) formative b) Transmit students their knowledge. c) continuous c) Make contents the centre of the teaching learning process. 12. Why is important to carry out an initial evaluation at the beginning of the process? 2. Indicate which of the following statements is False: a) to have an initial mark a) Innovate means the rejection of all the previous resources b) to check our students’ previous knowledge b) We also need to use the new technologies c) to correct mistakes from previous courses c) It is the students who demand using the new elements 13. Why is important to have a final evaluation at the end of the process? d) Using new technologies is motivating a) to have a final mark 3. Using ICTs in the classroom is a resource that .... b) to prevent mistakes for further courses a) Motivates students c) to check if they achieved the objectives b) Stimulates discussions 14. Which one of these laws does not regulate the Infant Education in the Valencian c) Helps to share stories Community? d) All the above a) LOE 4. Which of the following is not a benefit of using ICTs? b) Royal Decree 1630/2006
a) Repetition of activities c) Royal Decree 1530/2007 10. ANNEX b) Motivation d) Decree 38/2008
363 c) Fun 15. According to Article 14 of the LOE, teaching methods in both cycles will be based d) Quality of language on: 5. Which of the following is not a drawback of using ICTs? a) experiences, exercises and oral skills. a) Authenticity b) experiences, activities and play. b) Economic barriers c) activities, exercises and sports. c) Computer phobia d) oral and listening exercises. d) Technical problems 16. According to Article 14 of the LOE, it is not the responsibility of the Education 6. What 3 criteria are taken into account to select software? Administrations… a) Purpose – design – content a) to provide initial contact with a foreign language in the second cycle of infant b) Content – design – navigation education. c) Purpose – design – navigation b) to provide initial contact with reading and writing skills. 7. What 3 criteria are taken into account to select resources? c) to introduce advanced numerical skills. a) Purpose – design – content d) to introduce communication technology (ICT) and visual and musical b) Content – design – navigation expression. c) Purpose – design – navigation 17. Which one of these statements does not describe the Royal Decree 1630/2006? 8. Who was the first one who used the Web 2.0? a) It establishes the minimum teachings in the 2nd cycle of Infant Education. a) Peter Rabbit b) It is the base to develop the different decrees for 2nd cycle of I.E. in the b) James Asher autonomous communities. c) Tim O’Reilly c) It does not establish the same general objectives as LOE. d) None of them d) It establishes three subjects. 9. The basic principle of evaluation is based on the ...... observation. 18. Decide which one of these is not a subject established by the Royal Decree a) direct 1630/2006? b) indirect a) Knowledge of themselves and personal autonomy c) casual b) Knowledge of the environment c) Languages: Communication and Representation d) The physic environment: natural, social and cultural
19. Which of these is not a block of the contents in the Languages: d) an imposition in a time of technological changes. Communication and Representation subject? 25. Which of the following is not a task that educators have to accomplish : a) Language as a learning tool. a) Create and develop original ICT´s material. b) Artistic Language. b) Understand the different learning styles. c) Scientific Language. c) Design and organize classes (explore a variety of materials and d) Languages and Speakers. languages of expression). 20. The Verbal Language block of contents is divided into three parts. Can d) Research inside and outside the classroom. you find the one that doesn’t belong in this block? 26. One of the drawbacks of using ICT´s in the English classroom is: a) Listening, speaking and talking. a) Individual and collaborative work b) Approximation to written language. b) Motivation c) Approximation to oral language. c) Economic barriers d) Approximation to literature d) Acquisition of IT skills. 21. Which one is not part of LOE´s objectives for Infant Education: 27. Which of the following is not one of the techniques used by a) Relate to others and gradually acquire basic social skills and the researchers in the teaching of L2: peaceful resolution of conflicts. a) Classroom activities.
b) Develop communication skills in different languages and ways of b) Journals. 10. ANNEX expression. c) Questionnaires. 364 c) Encourage self-learning and self-evaluation. d) External International Assessment d) Begin developing logical and mathematical skills, reading and 28. Which statement is not true when talking about Evaluation: writing skills, movement, gesture and rhythm. a) Evaluation activities should be designed according to the 22. The Royal Decree 38 /2008 applies to: activities and tasks done during the unit: a) Infant Education in the Valencian Community b) any activity that we have done in these units is useful to b) the Infant Education Act evaluate their improvement c) Infant Education all around Spain c) specific activities for evaluation could be designed when it is d) Primary and Infant Education in Spain necessary to obtain specific information that cannot be achieved with 23. Within the Verbal Language block of contents, the first one, “Listening, the rest of activities speaking and talking” does not include: d) activities for evaluation should always include new technologies a) Progressive discovery of the new lexic and new and genuine 29. Evaluation does not allow us to: grammar structures, intonation and pronunciation. a) evaluate the achievements and progress of students b) Proper understanding of the exact content of an oral message, b) evaluate and correct mistakes of previous courses when related with knowledge of the envionment. c) evaluate students teaching practice. c) Comprehension of the global idea of oral texts in everyday class d) prepare remedial work and follow up activities whenever situations and when talking about known or predictable topics. necessary. d) Interest to participate in oral interactions in everyday routines 30. It is not one of the aspects we evaluate when evaluating the and communicative situations. teaching/learning process: 24. Teacher Training is considered: a) teachers´grades a) a rewarding initial experience. b)t he activities developed b) a lifelong experience c) students’ engagement c) a requirement to fulfil at the beginning of teaching practice d) the difficulty level
ANNEX III
Course Contents Group Oral
Presentation Grading Chart
331
332
10. ANNEX
Group 5: Suggestopedia
English Group Content Methodology Materials fluency Name Students Scale 20% 40% 20% 20% Deficient: 0-3 Poor: 4-5 Correct: 6 Good: 7-8 Excellent: 9-10
, Final mark:
Observations & remarks English fluency
Content
Methodology
Materials
333 367
334
ANNEX IV
Making Storybook & Storybook
Presentation Instructions
335
336
10. ANNEX
STORYBOOK (Making Storybook #1)
•Instructions: –Length: 6‐8 pages (not including covers) –The storybook may contain illustrations, hard paper pop‐ups, textures, music, etc. Be creative! ‐Students will need to present the storybook to the rest of the class by reading and representing the story with the appropiate athmosphere. ‐The teacher will collect the storybooks.
STORYBOOK (Oral Presentation #2)
Answer these questions about your storybook:
1. What’s the title? How did you choose it?
2. Do a short summary and name the main characters.
3. How did you create the story?
4. Which materials did you use? Does it contain pop-ups, textures, illustrations…?
5. Which sources did you use?
6. Tell us the story.
337 371
338
ANNEX V
Didactic Unit Correcting Guide
339
340
10. ANNEX
DIDACTIC UNIT CORRECTION MODEL PART 1 (Total 1.5points)This part corresponds with the didactic unit theoretical frame. Objectives: 0.25 points Blocks of Contents: 0.25 points Language: 0.25 points Values: 0.25 points Cross‐Curricular: 0.25 points Assessment: 0.25 points
PART 2 (Total 7.5 points) Session # 1 (total 1.5points) • Presentation: 0.5 points • Practice: 0.5 points • Production: 0.5 points Session # 2 (total 1.5 points) • Presentation: 0.5 points • Practice: 0.5 points • Production: 0.5 points Session # 3 (total 1.5 points) • Presentation: 0.5 points • Practice: 0.5 points • Production: 0.5 points Session # 4 (total 1.5points) • Presentation: 0.5 points • Practice: 0.5 points • Production: 0.5 points Session # 5 (total 1.5 points) • Station 1: 0.5 points • Station 2: 0.5 points • Station 3: 0.5 points
PART3 (total 1point)This part correspond to the use of English in the creation and development of the didactic unit. Excellent: 1 point Good (there are not many corrections in the d. u. composition): 0.75 points Poor (many and multiple mistakes along the d.u.): 0.5 points Bad (intelligible): 0 points
341 375
342
ANNEX VI
English–Spanish Education and Assessment Glossary
Didactics of English Language in Preschool Education– 2011 Adapted from California Department of Education
343
344
10. ANNEX
English Español
- A - ability Habilidad
Abnormality Anormalidad above average por arriba del promedio
Absence Ausencia abstract reasoning razonamiento abstracto academic achievement goals metas de logros académicos academic calendar calendario académico
Academic Performance Index (API) Índice de rendimiento académico (API) academic standards estándares académicos accelerated courses cursos acelerados
Accommodations Acomodaciones
Accountability responsabilidad†
Accuracy exactitud†
Achievement Logro achievement level descriptors (ALDs) descriptores del nivel de logros académicos (ALDs) achievement gap brecha de logros académicos
345 379 10. ANNEX
achievement test prueba de logros académicos
Acquisition Adquisición
Acronyms Siglas action plan plan de acción active learning aprendizaje active
Acute Agudo adaptive behavior conducta adaptativa adaptive skills habilidades de adaptación adequate progress indicators indicadores de progreso adecuado adequate yearly progress (AYP) progreso anual adecuado (AYP)
Adjustment Ajuste administer, to aplicar, administrar administration administración
Administrator administrador/a
Adolescence Adolescencia adopt, to Adoptar adopted materials materiales adoptados advanced performance level nivel avanzado advanced students estudiantes sobresalientes advisory committee comité asesor
346 380 10. ANNEX
Aggregate Agregado aggregate performance rendimiento total align with Alinear alternate assessment prueba alterna alternative assessment prueba alternativa
American Sign Language (ASL) Lenguaje americano de señas (ASL) annual assessment prueba annual
Annual Measurable Achievement Objetivo medible de logro anual (AMAO) Objective (AMAO) assess, to Evaluar assess the credibility and accuracy of each evaluar la credibilidad y precisión de cada source, to Fuente
Assessment evaluación, prueba, examen assistant principal subdirector/a assistant teacher ayudantedel maestro
Associate of Arts (AA) Título postsecundario de preparación básica (AA) at-risk students estudiantes con riesgo de fracaso escolar
Attendance Asistencia audit, to Auditor
347 381 10. ANNEX
average daily attendance (ADA) promedio de asistencia diaria (ADA) avoid plagiarism, to evitar el plagio
-B- Bachelor of Arts (BA) Bachillerato en humanidades (BA)
Bachelor of Science (BS) Bachillerato en ciencias (BS)
Back-to-School (Night) (Noche de) Regreso a la escuela baseline data datos que forman la base de la evaluación basic performance level nivel básico
Basic Achievement Skills Individual Evaluación individual del aprovechamiento Screener (BASIS) académico básico (BASIS)
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills Capacidad básica de comunicación (BICS) interpersonal (BICS) basic sight words palabras básicas reconocibles a primera vista basic skills destrezas básicas beginning performance level nivel inicial beginning readers lectores principiantes
Behavior conducta† behavior disorder trastorno de la conducta behavioral objective objetivo del comportamiento educativo below average por debajo del promedio below basic performance level por debajo del nivel básico below expectations por debajo de las expectativas mínimas
348 382 10. ANNEX
Benchmark punto de referencia
benchmark test prueba de referencia, examen de referencia
Bilingual Advisory Committee (BAC) Comité asesor de la educación bilingüe (BAC)
bilingual assessment evaluación bilingüe
Bilingual Cross-cultural Language and Desarrollo lingüístico académico y bilingüe Academic Development (BCLAD) transcultural (BCLAD)
bilingual education educación bilingüe
bilingual educational aide auxiliar educativo/a bilingüe
Bilingual Immersion Program Programa de inmersión bilingüe
Biliteracy capacidad de leer y escribir en dos idiomas
Biliterate capaz de leer y escribir en dos idiomas
birth certificate acta de nacimiento, partida de nacimiento
board meeting reunión de la junta directiva
board of directors consejo directivo
Board of Education Consejo educativo
booklet (as in test booklet) libreto del examen
bridging proficiency level nivel de transición
budget allocations asignaciones del presupuesto
budget shortfall deficiencia del presupuesto building and grounds worker Conserje
Bulletin Boletín bulletin board tablero de anuncios
349 383 10. ANNEX
buy-back days días de desarrollo profesional
-C- Cadre grupo de expertos, conjunto de expertos
cap and gown toga y birrete
career adviser asesor/a vocacional, asesor/a profesional
Career Technical Education (CTE) Educación técnica, Educación vocacional (CTE)
certificate of educational achievement certificado de rendimiento educativo
Certificate of Proficiency Certificado de suficiencia académica
Child niño/a
child abuse prevention program programa para la prevención del maltrato de menores de edad
child advocate defensor/a de menores de edad
Child and Family Services Servicios para menores de edad y familias
child development program programade desarrollo infantil
child development specialist especialista en el desarrollo infantil
children with disabilities niños/as con discapacidades
Children’s Protective Services Servicios de protección a los menores de edad
claim, to postular†
class size reduction reducción de la proporción de estudiantes por maestro
classified personnel or staff personal sin certificado educativo
Classroom salón, aula
350 384 10. ANNEX
Coach Entrenador code of student behavior código de conducta estudiantil
College Universidad college and career readiness estar preparado para una carrera universitaria y professional content cluster conjunto de estándares de contenido académico college preparation program programa de preparación para el ingreso a la Universidad community advisory committee (CAC) comité asesor comunitario (CAC)
- community college - universidad pública de dos años
Competency Capacidad competency-based curriculum programa de estudios basado en las capacidades del alumno comprehensive high school escuela secundaria, escuela preparatoria computer adaptive test/testing (CAT) prueba adaptiva administrada por computadora (CAT) computer-based test/testing prueba administrada por computadora computer literacy habilidades y conocimientos fundamentales en la computación
Confidential Confidencial constructed-response question pregunta que requiere una respuesta escrita† content standards estándares de contenido académico conventions of standard English grammar normas y reglas de la gramática en inglés and usage cooperative learning aprendizaje cooperativo
351 385 10. ANNEX
core curriculum currículo fundamental† core literature obras literarias fundamentales core program programa de materias fundamentales core subjects materias fundamentales corrective action acción correctiva
Counselor consejero/a criterion-referenced test prueba basada en objetivos específicos critical thinking razonamiento crítico, razonamiento analítico
Curriculum currículo, plan de estudios curriculum-based assessments evaluaciones basadas en el currículo, pruebas basadas en el currículo cut score (minimum score, maximum score) puntaje mínimo, puntaje límite
- D - day-care center guardería infantil descriptive essay composición descriptiva development standards estándares de desarrollo diagnostic assessment evaluación diagnóstica
Digital Library Biblioteca digital differentiated instruction instrucción diferenciada directions for test administration instrucciones para la administración de pruebas
Disabilities Discapacidades
- autism - autismo
352 386 10. ANNEX
- deaf-blindness - sordoceguera
- deafness - sordera
- emotional disturbance (ED) - trastorno emocional (conocido en inglés como ED)
- hearing impairment - impedimento auditivo
- intellectual disability - discapacidad intelectual
- multiple disabilities - discapacidades múltiples
- orthopedic impairment - impedimento ortopédico
- other health impairment - otro impedimento de salud
- specific learning disability (SLD) - discapacidad especifica de aprendizaje (conocida en inglés como SLD)
- trastorno del habla o lenguaje - speech or language impairment - lesión cerebral traumática (conocida - traumatic brain injury (TBI) en inglés como TBI)
- discapacidad desconocida - unknown disability - impedimento visual - visual impairment
Domain Área dress code código de vestir
Dropout estudiante que abandona los estudios dropout rate tasade abandono escolar dual immersion inmersión doble
-E- Early Assessment Program (EAP) Programa de evaluación temprana (EAP)
353 387 10. ANNEX
early advanced performance level nivel preavanzado early intermediate performance level nivel preintermedio early intervention intervención temprana
Early Intervention Program for School Programa de intervención temprana para el Success éxito académico early literacy lectoescritura temprana
Early Literacy Assessment Prueba de lectoescritura temprana
Early Literacy Program Programa de lectoescritura temprana
Early Reading First Antes que nada, la lectura infantil economically disadvantaged de bajos recursos económicos
Education Code (EC) Código de Educación(EC) education level nivel de educación
Education Programs Consultant Consultor de programas educativos education reform reforma educativa effective communication skills habilidad para comunicarse eficazmente effective schools escuelas eficaces
Eighth octavo elective classes materias opcionales
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Ley federal para la educación primaria y (ESEA) secundaria (ESEA) elementary education educación primaria elementary school escuela primaria
Eleventh onceavo, undécimo
354 388 10. ANNEX
Eligible Elegible e-mail correo electrónico emerging proficiency level nivel emergente emotionally disturbed individuo con problemas emocionales end-of-course exam examen de final del curso
English as a second language (ESL) Inglés como un segundo idioma* (ESL)
English language acquisition proceso de aprendizaje del inglés como segundo idioma*
English–language arts standards estándares académicos del idioma inglés
English-language development (ELD) desarrollo del inglés como segundo idioma* (ELD)
English-language development standards estándares académicos del desarrollo del inglés como segundo idioma*
English learner (EL) estudiante aprendiendo inglés como segundo idioma* (EL)
English Placement Test (EPT) Examen de colocación en lengua y literatura en inglés (EPT)
English proficient proficiente en el inglés
Enrollment Inscripción ethnic group grupo étnico
Ethnicity Etnicidad
Evaluation Evaluación evidence-based decisions decisiones basadas en evidencia
Examination Examen
355 389 10. ANNEX
Exemplars Ejemplares
Examples Ejemplos
Exempt Exento
Exemption Exención expected schoolwide learning results (ESLR) resultados de aprendizaje previstos para todos los estudiantes de la escuela (ESLR) expel, to Expulsar expository writing escritura explicativa extended school year año escolar prolongado
Extracurricular extracurricular
- F - fail, to desaprobar, reprobar, fallo far below basic performance level muy por debajo del nivel básico fictional narrative narrativa de ficción field coordinator coordinador/a en el campo educativo field test investigación exploratoria† field trip excursión escolar
Fifth quinto
First Primero first-aid kit botiquín de primeros auxilios
Flexibility flexibilidad
Fluency Fluidez fluent-English proficient (FEP) proficiente en inglés (FEP)
356 390 10. ANNEX
fluent reader con fluidez en la lectura
Flyer circular, folleto focus areas áreas de enfoque formative assessment evaluación formativa formative assessment practices prácticas de las evaluaciones formativas formative tools and processes instrumentos y procesos formativos
Fourth Cuarto
Framework marco curricular full-time equivalent (FTE) equivalente a un puesto de tiempo completo (FTE)
Fund Fondos
- G - gather relevant information, to recopilar información pertinente general academic and domain-specific words palabras y frases de uso académico general o and phrases específico de una disciplina
General Educational Development (GED) Pruebas de desarrollo educativo general Test (GED) general education program programa escolar normal
Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) Educación para estudiantes sobresalientes (GATE) governing board mesa directiva, junta directiva
Grade año, grado grade level año escolar, grado escolar grade-level standards estándares al nivel del año académico,
357 391 10. ANNEX
estándares al nivel del grado escolar grade-point average (GPA) promedio de calificaciones (GPA) graduation rates tasas de graduación escolar
Grant Subvención grant writer redactor/a de propuestas para solicitar subvenciones growth target objetivo de mejora
Guide Guía
Guidelines guías generales
- H -
Handwriting letra manuscrita Harassment hostigamiento, acoso health assessment evaluación de la salud high academic level alto nivel académico high achievement alto rendimiento high expectations expectativas altas high-quality assessment evaluación de alta calidad high school escuela secundaria, escuela preparatoria higher education educación superior highly qualified teacher maestro/a altamente acreditado/a home language lengua materna
Home Language Survey (HLS) Encuesta de la lengua materna (HLS) home study estudio en el hogar, estudio en casa
358 392 10. ANNEX
- I -
Illiteracy Analfabetismo
Immigrant Inmigrante
Implementation Implementación improvement plan plan de mejoramiento independent study estudio independiente individualized education program (IEP) programa individualizado de educación (IEP)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Ley de la educación para individuos con (IDEA) discapacidades (IDEA) information bulletin suplemento informativo, folleto informativo informative writing escritura informativa initial assessment evaluación inicial, prueba inicial initial identification identificación inicial initially fluent-English proficient (I-FEP) inicialmente designado como estudiante proficiente en inglés (I-FEP)
Instruction Instrucción instructional materials materiales instructivos
Instructional Quality Commission (IQC) Comisión encargada de la calidad de la enseñanza (IQC) instructional strategies estrategias instructivas interim assessments evaluaciones interinas intermediate performance level nivel intermedio
Internship servicio como pasante, práctica como pasante intervention program programa de intervención
359 393 10. ANNEX
Interventions intervenciones introduce claims, to presentar las postulaciones
Involvement participación
- J -
- K - Kindergarten jardín de niños, jardín infantil
Kinesthetic Cinestético
- L - language acquisition adquisición del idioma language other than English otro idioma además del inglés large-scale assessment evaluación a gran escala letter grade calificación con letra(s) life science ciencias de la vida limited-English proficient (LEP) estudiante con proficiencia limitada del inglés (LEP) link (as in Internet or Web link) enlace link and cite sources, to enlazar y citar fuentes de información listen, to escuchar
Literacy literario, lectoescritura
Literacy Standards for History–Social Estándares literarios en historia y estudios Studies sociales local control control local
360 394
10. ANNEX
long-term English learner (LTEL) estudiante aprendiendo inglés como segundo idioma* por largo tiempo (LTEL) long-term trend assessment la evaluación de tendencia de largo plazo low incidence incidente poco común, incidente con poca frecuencia low-income families familias de bajos ingresos, familias de escasos recursos low-performing schools escuelas de bajo rendimiento
- M - makeup dates fechas de recuperación mainstream English inglés de uso común master schedule horario maestro mathematics Matemáticas measurable objectives objetivos mensurables
Measurement of Academic Performance Medida del rendimiento y progreso and Progress (MAPP) académico (MAPP) mental health salud mental mentor, to servir como mentor middle school escuela intermedia
Migrant Education Program Programa de educación para estudiantes migrantes minimum academic requirements requisitos académicos mínimos minor menor de edad minorities Minorías modifications Modificaciones monitor, to supervisar†
395
10. ANNEX
Monolingual monolingüe multiple-choice questions preguntas de opción múltiple multicultural education educación multicultural multitrack schools escuelas de ciclos múltiples
- N - native English speakers angloparlantes native language lengua materna needs improvement necesita mejorar newcomer center centro para estudiantes recien llegados
Newsletter boletín informativo
Ninth noveno non-English speaking no habla inglés
Notarized notarizado/a nuances in word meanings matices en el significado de las palabras nursery school guardería de niños, guardería infantil
- O - Office of the Secretary of Education Oficina de la secretaría de educación oral language skills capacidad de expresión oral oral vocabulary vocabulario oral
Orthography Ortografía overall performance level nivel de rendimiento total
- P - Pamphlet Folleto
Paraprofessional asistente del maestro parent advisory council (PAC) consejo asesor de padres de familia (PAC)
396
10. ANNEX
parental notification notificación para los padres de familia parents and guardians (legal term) padres y tutores legales parents and guardians (school term) padres y representantes participation criteria criterio de participación performance assessments evaluaciones de rendimiento, pruebas de rendimiento performance level nivel de rendimiento performance report informe de rendimiento performance standards estándares de rendimiento performance tasks ejercicios de rendimiento personally identifiable information información personal identificable persuasive essay composición persuasiva pilot test examen piloto population sampling muestra de la población postsecondary postsecundaria practice tests exámenes de práctica preschool centro de educación preescolar present claims and findings, to presentar resultados y postulaciones primary language idioma nativo professional development or learning capacitación profesional, desarrollo profesional proficient performance level nivel proficiente
Program Improvement (PI) Programa de mejoramiento académico (PI) progress report informe de progreso académico public schools escuelas públicas
397
10. ANNEX
- Q - qualitative information información cualitativa quantitative information información cuantitativa
- R - range of reading and level of text rango de lectura y nivel de complejidad complexity del texto raw score calificación, puntaje read, to leer reading readiness skills preparación para la lectura reading comprehension comprensión de lectura
Reauthorization reautorización recently arrived English learner estudiante recién llegado y aprendiendo inglés como segundo idioma reclassified-fluent English proficient estudiante reclasificadocomo proficiente (R-FEP) eninglés (R-FEP)
Reclassification reclasificación register, to matricular, inscribir
Register Registro registration fees costo de matrícula registration form formulario dematrícula
Regulations reglamentos released test questions preguntas de exámenes autorizadas para su divulgación
Reliable verosimil, confiable†
Reliability fiabilidad, confiabilidad report card libreta de calificaciones, reporte de
398
10. ANNEX
calificaciones reporting cluster conjunto de estándares de contenido académico research-based que tiene base en la investigación científica restructuring reestructuración retain, to retener retention retención rubric rúbrica
- S - sample (as in sample report) muestra, ejemplo, ejemplar scaffolding ayuda suplementaria para que un estudiante aprenda† scale score calificación de escala schedule horario scholarship beca school action plan plan escolar de acción school-based con sede escolar school board mesa directiva de educación school calendar calendario escolar school choice opción de escuela school district distrito escolar school records registros escolares, expedientes escolares school site plan (SSP) plan del plantel escolar (SSP) school site council (SSC) consejo directivo escolar (SSC) school within a school escuela dentro de una escuela
399
10. ANNEX
school year año escolar
Science ciencias science framework marco curricular para las ciencias scientifically based methods métodos científicamente comprobados
Score puntaje scoring guide guía para los puntajes
Seal sello secondary education enseñanza secundaria
Second segundo
Secretary of Education Secretaria de educación
Seventh séptimo sheltered English instrucción contextualizada para el aprendizaje del inglés sheltered instruction instrucción contextualizada significant cognitive disabilities discapacidades cognitivas significativas similar schools rank rango de escuelas similares site administrator administrador de escuela
Sixth sexto
Skills habilidades, capacidades, destrezas socioeconomically disadvantaged estudiantes de escasos recursos students socioeconómicos
Spanish language idioma español, castellano speak, to hablar special day class (SDC) clase especial para estudiantes con discapacidades (SDC) special education educación especial
400
10. ANNEX
Spelling deletreo staff development capacitación del personal standardized testing pruebas estandarizadas
Standardized Testing and Reporting Programa de exámenes y reportes (STAR) Program estandarizados (Programa STAR) standards estándares standards-aligned instruction enseñanza basada en los estándares standards-based curriculum currículo basado en los estándares
State Board of Education (SBE) Mesa directiva estatal de la educación (SBE) state exams exámenes estatales state curriculum framework marco curricular del estado state special school escuela estatal para la educacion especial
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Superintendente de instrucción pública del (SSPI) estado (SSPI) strand of standards categoría principal de estándares strengths puntos fuertes student estudiante, alumno/a student achievement data datos de rendimiento académico student body alumnado student scores calificaciones de los estudiantes student subgroups subgrupos de estudiantes subject materia substitute teacher maestro/a suplente summary writing resumen escrito de un pasaje summative assessment evaluación sumativa
401
10. ANNEX
Supplemental suplementario/a supplementary materials materiales suplementarios support services servicios auxiliares, servicios de apoyo support staff personal auxiliar, personal de apoyo suspend, to suspender
Systematic sistemático
Systemic sistémico
- T - Task ejercicio task force grupo de expertos asignados a un proyecto específico teacher quality calidad de maestros technical assistance ayuda técnica technical school escuela técnica technical support apoyo técnico technology-enhanced items preguntas destacadas con tecnología technology-enhanced tests pruebas destacadas con tecnología technology-readiness tool instrumento para evaluar la disposición a la tecnología
Tenth Décimo
Test examen, prueba test administrator examinador/a test administration window periodo de administración de las pruebas test blueprint plan del contenido de la prueba textbook adoption adopción de libros
402
10. ANNEX
textual evidence evidencia de la lectura third tercero
Title I Título I trade school escuela vocacional/industrial transcript expediente académico, certificado de estudios truant estudiante que falta a la escuela sin justificación tuition costos de matrícula
Tutor tutor/a, instructor/a individual tutoring tutoría, instrucción suplementaria
Twelfth doceavo, duodécimo two-way immersion program programa de inmersión doble
- U - unexcused absence ausencia injustificada universal access acceso universal update, to actualizar, ponerse al día
use accurate and credible sources, to utilizar fuentes precisas y fidedignas use domain-specific vocabulary, to utilizar vocabulario especifico de la disciplina use print and digital sources, to utilizar medios impresos y fuentes digitales use credible sources, to hacer uso de fuentes fidedignas
403
10. ANNEX
- V - Validity Validez
Variations variaciones verbal comprehension comprensión verbal verbalize, to verbalizar, expresar con palabras vice principal subdirector/a
- W - Waiver prescindir del requisito, dispensar el requisito
Weaknesses Debilidades
Web page pagina electrónica
Web site red electrónica, sitio electrónico weighted average promedio proporcionado working days días laborales write informative and explanatory essay, to escribir una composición informativa y explicativa write, to Escribir
404
ANNEX VII
Glossary for ESL EFL Teaching
10. ANNEX
http://www.headsupenglish.com/index.php/esl-articles/esl-miscellaneous/319-esl- glossary-of-terms
A (Mostly) Complete Glossary for ESL EFL Teaching
Written by Chris Cotter accuracy: Some students have little trouble speaking English. The words just pour out. For some ESL EFL learners, although they produce a steady stream of English, the sentences contain numerous mistakes with grammar, vocabulary, and other aspects of the language. In other words, their speaking isn't very accurate, which could hinder another's comprehension. Activities which encourage accuracy, or activities which use group correction and student-to-student correction, help reduce mistakes. Compare fluency. affective strategies: Emotions, moods, and stress affect the success of students in the classroom. Affective strategies take into consideration these dynamics. They limit the negative and encourage the positive. analytical learners: Analytical learners prefer to plan and organize their work. They focus on details and logic, and prefer sequential steps and clear progression. They are often unwilling to take a guess except when they're confident of their response. Their notebooks and work may be quite detailed.
Audiolingual Method: The Audiolingual Method came onto the scene after World War II. With America involved in international affairs, institutions focused on oral communication. They took aspects of the Direct Method, experimented and adapted the methodology, and created ALM.
Although the Audiolingual Method has fallen out of favor over the past fifty years, adaptations are currently used in many countries and curricula around the world. ALM focuses on the repetition of set phrases, particularly structural patterns. Students learn new grammar and vocabulary in context, as opposed to explanations. As such, and combined with the fact that teachers refrain from using L1 in the classroom, heavy emphasis is placed on visual and auditory aids. Dialogues often present the new material, as they show the language in context. Perfect pronunciation and a somewhat too-heavy focus on accuracy
407
10. ANNEX
are also emphasized, so the lessons tend to be heavy on drills and short on meaning. See Direct Method, Grammar Translation Method, and Suggestopedia, and Silent Way.
Auditory Learners: Students with this learning style prefer oral instructions and activities. They learn best be listening and speaking, and so may enjoy oral reading, choral reading, and listening activities. Auditory learners may struggle with reading in that they won't fully glean the key information. Yet they may easily be capable of understanding important elements of a lecture or set of instructions. automaticity: The more students practice a language point, the more established the pattern becomes. Students don't need to dwell on work order or grammatical rules, for example, which frees them to think about other forms of the language.
Take a lesson on the future tense "going to" as an example. Students practice the following pattern: "(Subject) is going to (verb)." In the initial stages of the lesson, students produce the language quite slowly, because they need to think about the sentence pattern and vocabulary. With each activity, though, the language comes out more quickly, as the pattern gets established. When the teacher later instructs the students to provide a reason for each activity with "because," the students can pay more attention to linking a logical reason with the action. The language has become automatic. bottom-up processing: Bottom-up processing focuses on the specifics of the language, such as vocabulary, sentence structures, grammar, intonation, and even individual sounds or letters. Bottom-up deals with the specifics, then, and what goes on while reading or listening to English. It's important for students to recognize and understand the details, because they can then apply the patterns or rules to other aspects of the language. Top- down is the opposite process, and works in tandem with bottom-up processing. Compare top-down processing.
CALL: With technology advancing at an ever increasing rate, it's natural to want to use it in the language-learning process, particularly computers. Hence computer-assisted language learning, or CALL. Any use of podcasts off the Internet, e-mails, or blogs, just to name a few examples, as well as lessons fully online, fall into the CALL category.
408
10. ANNEX
CELTA: The Certificate in Language Teaching to Adults is a professional credential recognized worldwide for ESL EFL teachers. At the time of this writing, courses are available on the ground only, and are validated through the University of Cambridge. Many jobs don't require a CELTA certificate, but positions with better working conditions and opportunities for advancement often do. The course runs for four weeks, and is very intensive. Practice in the classroom with real English learners, as well as evaluations, are course requirements too. See CELTYL and DELTA.
CELTYL: Similar to CELTA, the Certificate in Language Teaching to Young Learners focuses on the teaching of children and teenagers. Also like CELTA, the four week intensive course is vetted by the University of Cambridge. It offers hands-on practice and observations of experienced teachers. Participants who already hold a CELTA certificate may opt for a shorter, two-week program that bestows an extension to the CELTA certificate. See CELTA and DELTA. choral drills: Choral drills offer students the chance to listen to and practice accent, intonation, and the lesson's target language. The teacher reads a word or sentence, and everyone repeats the same word or sentence. Because choral drills focus on accuracy, it's important to aim for a high standard. Poor pronunciation, for example, or incorrect use of the target language limit the drill's effectiveness and purpose.
Too much listen-and-repeat activities can prove boring, repetitive, and require little thought on the students' part. But choral drills remain an important part of language acquisition, especially in the early stages of a lesson, with limited use, and when made meaningful. See interactive drills, meaningful drills, and substitution drills. cognitive strategies: This learning strategy focuses on summarization, repetition, organizing the language, and memorization. Students who opt for this strategy manipulate the language to foster retention and recall. Some examples include mind mapping, mnemonics, and underlining key words or phrases. compensatory strategies: With this strategy, students use a strength or a skill to work around a weakness. In other words, they compensate for the weakness when speaking, listening, reading, or writing. Circumlocution is one example, as is repeating information to
409
10. ANNEX
confirm key ideas. the former would work around any weakness with vocabulary, while the latter might be used if the student struggles with listening or reading. content-based instruction: Content-based teaching differs from traditional language classes because language comes second to the content. In other words, the teacher runs a course on current affairs, or American history, or fiction writing, through which students also learn English. It's important to note that English ends up as subordinate to the material, although the teacher must recognize and be prepared to help students with language skills. Immersion programs for children, or English for Specific Purposes are also examples of content-based instruction. Because of the nature of the content, all four skills get integrated. It's important to note that the content continues through the whole course, not just a handful of lessons. A class on shopping one day, using the bank on another day, and making hotel reservations in English at a different class session is more aptly considered task-based instruction. See task-based instruction and theme-based instruction. controlled activities: These activities serve as an introduction to the fundamentals of the lesson's target structure. Students are prompted for the language, for which there is only one correct response. For example:
Teacher: I like apples. Students: I like apples. Teacher: I like oranges. Students: I like oranges. Teacher: pears. Students: I like pears. Teacher: grapes. Students: I like grapes.
Similar examples of controlled activities include: dialogue; dictation; a word or sentence prompted with a flashcard; and a word or sentence scrambled.
In the initial stages of the lesson, this type of activity proves very important because students are laying down the pattern of the language. In other words, they are trying to make the language automatic. The more students practice a phrase or grammar point, the more likely they will remember it and apply it correctly elsewhere during the session. 410
10. ANNEX
Compare semi-controlled activities and free activities, which often appear later in the lesson. correction: There are four types of correction in the ESL EFL classroom: group correction, self-correction, student-to-student correction, and teacher-to-student correction.
DELTA: The Diploma of Language Teaching to Adults is similar to CELTA, although it requires more study and general knowledge in the ESL EFL field. It's often viewed as a follow up to the CELTA course.
Cambridge Assessment awards the diploma after completing about three months of full time study. On completion, graduates have received supervised teaching practice, the chance to observe other teachers, written assignments, and a course exam. DELTA may also be completed on a part-time basis over a year or longer. See CELTA and CELTYL. dialogue: Dialogues take the grammar and vocabulary just presented and drilled, and place it in context through a scripted conversation. For example, students just studied "I'd like..." to make requests, then practiced it with every day situations (e.g., "I'd like an apple."). A dialogue would then take this target language and place it the context of booking a hotel. Students see what sort of language comes before a request, what sort of language comes after, and how several requests and responses affect the conversation. Dialogues may also be referred to as scripted role plays. See role play for a comparison.
Direct Method: The Direct Method came about in the late 1800s, and then mostly disappeared by the early 1900s. It had students learn a language in the target language. In other words, to study English, all new words and grammar were given in English. What's more, patterns rather than rules were highlighted, so the teacher never directly explained grammar rules. Vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects, and pictures. Difficult, abstract words were given through an association of ideas. The students deduced the meaning and then applied the language. The Direct Method dealt in small classes with a lot of attention given to each student for intensive study of a language. See also Audiolingual Method, Grammar Translation Method, and Suggestopedia, and Silent Way. drills: Drills allow students to practice the lesson's target language in controlled, predictable exercises. This is perfect when the teacher initially presents and practices new
411
10. ANNEX
material. Drills help make the language automatic, laying down a set path or habit early in the lesson. The more times students use a set pattern, the more likely they will then be able to correctly use the new language later in the lesson, and beyond. See choral drills, interactive drills, meaningful drills, and substitution drills.
EAP: Lessons for English for Academic Purposes deals with language related to academia. These classes are most often geared towards students expecting to enter a foreign university or course at the college level. Because it's assumed that the students either possess general language skills, or are in the process of acquiring them, EAP classes work towards supplying the students with skills needed to succeed in an academic environment. effective talk time: Although the balance between teacher talk time and student talk time is important, the effectiveness of their respective speaking time proves equally important. A teacher who speaks only 30% of the time, but fills it with off-topic personal stories and anecdotes, or gives unclear instructions, obviously has ineffective talk time. The same holds true for when a teacher doesn't maximize his students' chance to speak in pairs and groups. He instead has one student talk, perhaps to answer a question or present information, while the others just wait for their turn. Ineffective talk time can limit how much students practice English, just as much as a class with high teacher talk time and low student talk time. See student talk time (STT), and teacher talk time (TTT).
EFL: Acronym for English as a Foreign Language. This type of English instruction proves more challenging for both the students and the teacher. The country in which the students live doesn't use English, so the classroom may be the only place to acquire and use the language. The focus of the lesson needs to be narrower than in an ESL setting because a lot of time must be spent presenting and practicing the language. Final activities should allow the students to use the target language and/or topic naturally, free of mistakes, and with free reign to incorporate material from past lessons.
EIL: Because English has become the lingua franca of the world, more and more nonnative speakers use the language to communicate with one another. Traditional EFL and ESL classes incorporate culture, cultural values, and specific phrases and words into the classroom, unique to America or Britain or New Zealand, for example. EIL looks at
412
10. ANNEX
technical, survival, social, occupational, or academic English in an international setting, without the need of imitating Americans, Brits, or New Zealanders. errors: An error occurs when a student uses the language incorrectly, but it's a word, sentence structure, or phrase which he hasn't learned yet. For example, a beginner tries to express his experience of visiting New York last year and says, "I have went to New York." The language is above his level. If this structure falls outside the scope of the lesson and/or level, it doesn't necessarily require correction. Idioms used incorrectly, or language appropriacy can also fall under errors. Compare mistakes.
ESL: Acronym for English as a Second Language. English learners are living and studying in an English-speaking country, such as Canada or Britain. They have numerous chances to experience and practice the language outside the classroom, and can use the target language in real-life situations as soon as the class finishes.
ESP: English for Special Purposes classes focus on professionals in specific fields. Specialized materials for engineers teach grammar, sentence patterns, and grammar needed for engineering, for example. Doctors and nurses work towards producing language needed in the healthcare industry. Business professionals learn how to conduct meetings, send emails, and negotiate with clients. In other words, the material used in lessons ends up as highly specialized for a specific industry. extensive reading: At its most simple, extensive reading asks students to read and read and read. Then they should read some more! The more material students look at, the better their overall competence with the language, especially with vocabulary, spelling, sentence structure, and writing. The work shouldn't be done in the classroom, because of the amount of reading expected. Students should instead read voluntarily outside the class. In addition, they don't need to check every unknown word, but should read for pleasure. extrinsic motivation: Rewards rather than enjoyment (primarily) motivate students to study English. The rewards may come in the form of prizes, for example, when students do well on a test or complete an activity quickly and correctly. But students may also study English in order to get a raise or a promotion. In the short term, extrinsic motivation works, although it ultimately may hinder motivation and retention in the long term. After all, points and prizes only work as long as they are deemed valuable. In the context of EFL, where 413
10. ANNEX
daily application and need for the language may not exist or seem readily applicable, extrinsic motivation may unfortunately play a larger role in motivating the class. See also intrinsic motivation. extroverted learners: Extroverted students tend to enjoy interaction in the classroom. They flourish and put language together in group activities that require information to be exchanged. Variety and change are very important too. feedback: All students require feedback, whether during the class, at the end of the lesson, or outside the classroom. Although correction appears similar to feedback, correction focuses on specific mistakes or errors. Feedback instead looks at weaknesses and strengths overall. For example, Kenji speaks very well, and actually dominates the conversation. He speaks and speaks and speaks because he has poor listening skills, though, which makes him unable to participate in a conversation well. It's important to note that feedback also refers to praise.
Feedback can be given to the class as a whole, as well as to individual students. This not only offers direction, but also the chance to reiterate class and personal goals. Students can also gauge their improvement over the course or term. Compare correction and praise. feeling learners: These students prefer lessons which personalize the information, especially through cooperative activities. They may befriend the teacher, which could lead to superior effort with praise and attention. However, feeling learners may become discouraged if the ignored or insufficiently praised. fillers: Fillers refer to the "ums," "ahs," and "errs" of native English speakers between thoughts. Part of speaking well for learners of the language means using fillers correctly. See also speaking strategies. fluency: Fluency defines how quickly and how smoothly students produce the language. Some students with poor fluency take several seconds to assemble questions and responses in their heads. They check grammar and vocabulary before speaking, making conversational exchange a slow and unnatural process. English learners such as these need speaking activities that focus on just getting the language out, such as timed activities (such as five minutes to talk to as many people as possible about their weekend) or
414
10. ANNEX
activities that require students to reach a goal as quickly as possible (such as be the first group to discuss weekends, then determine who had the best weekend and why). Compare accuracy. four skills: English can be broken into four main skills: speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Although there are other important aspects of the language, such as pronunciation, we can classify these as one of the four main skills.
Although some classes claim to focus on one skill, many skills work in tandem. Classes which focus on speaking in a conversational context favor listening too. This perhaps reflects the weight listening and speaking receive in the real world. Many universities also offer reading and writing classes, especially for academic purposes. See listening, reading, speaking, and writing. free activities: These activities allow students the greatest amount of freedom in the classroom. Free activities create an open atmosphere for students to manipulate the target language, experiment with it, and tie it to other language previously studied. Some example activities include debates, discussions, presentations, and role plays. In order to successfully debate a topic, for example, or role play a situation, the day's language, as well as other language, must be used.
It should be noted that free activities don't imply free conversation, though! Instead the outcome is open, and the teacher has little control over the language produced.
Let's look at an example. A class of ten students gets divided into pairs to discuss the pros and cons of living abroad. Although everyone begins with the same question, five very different conversations ensue. The outcome is open, and students may use any language along with the target structures of the day.
Also note that in most lessons, the teacher progresses from controlled activities, to semi- controlled activities, to free activities, with each step allowing greater and greater chances to play with the language. Compare controlled activities and semi-controlled activities. goal: This term refers to the large, umbrella-like target of the lesson. For example, a teacher wants to cover "going to" as a means to express plans already decided upon. The
415
10. ANNEX
focus of the lesson could be travel plans, plans during the upcoming summer break, or even usual activities for the weekend. As long as the teacher introduces and practices "going to," these three ideas all have the same goal. See also objective and steps. global learners: These students don't like to be bored, and require information presenting in an interesting manner. They often learn in large leaps, suddenly connecting several chunks together. For global learners, the big picture is often important. Global learners are also called "holistic learners."
Grammar Translation Method: For years and years, the Grammar Translation Method served as the primary means to teach a foreign language. Students memorized vocabulary in isolated lists and grammar rules in order to translate sentences, passages, and even larger amounts of text from the foreign language into their mother tongue. Exactly as the title implies, translation served as the focus, and so students only had to accurately reproduce the text. Little attention was given to content, context, or application of the material.
Few classes use this method of language learning nowadays. Because there is no interaction or communication with the language, it doesn't produce speakers of the language. It just produces students who can pick apart sentences, mull over their meanings, and then provide translations. See also Audiolingual Method, Direct Method, and Suggestopedia, and Silent Way. group correction: When activities require group work instead of pair or individual work, then group correction allows students to help one another. It fosters teamwork and a supportive classroom environment, as well as encourages students to notice the language. Any role-play, presentation, interview, debate, or other type of group activity can incorporate a correction session at the end. Students then point out mistakes others made during the activity. This technique also increases student talk time. See correction, self- correction, student-to-student correction, and teacher-to-student correction. integrated skills approach: An integrated skills approach to teaching makes use of listening, speaking, reading, and writing in a lesson or course. It realistically demonstrates real-life usage of the language, as opposed to focusing only one or two skills. For example:
416
10. ANNEX
• The lesson begins with students discussing two questions. This activates pre-held information on the topic and gets everyone ready for the main idea. • The teacher then distributes an article, which students have to read within two minutes. • In pairs, the students talk about what they remember from the article. • Students read the article again, answer comprehension questions, and seek clarification on any unfamiliar vocabulary or grammar. • The teacher reads a brief opinion aloud on the topic. This allows students to practice listening, but also gather additional information on the topic. • Students write some notes for discussion questions, discuss in pairs, and make note of their partners' answers. They then switch partners and repeat the questions.
Interest, motivation, and retention are all closely linked. By planned a lesson that integrates all four skills, the interest of students remains high. Interested students are motivated students, and motivated students remember the material better. interactive drills: Interactive drills use the target language, with students asking and answering questions interacting to reach a goal. These drills are also referred to as Q&A drills. An activity in which students ask a pre-determined set of questions about a recent vacation is an example of this drill type.
Interactive drills are semi-controlled activities, which suggest a mostly predictable range of answers. In other words, although there's more than one possible answer, the question and target language limits the number of possible responses. In the below example, all answers deal with usual weekend activities.
Q: What did you do this weekend? A (student 1): I went shopping for clothes. A (student 2): I saw a movie and went to dinner with a friend. A (student 3): I stayed home and slept.
Compare choral drills, meaningful drills, and substitution drills. intrinsic motivation: Students study the language because they enjoy the sense of accomplishment. There is no other real reward that comes with success, apart from an ability to communicate in English. Think of an hobby which a person does out of enjoyment
417
10. ANNEX
rather than tangible reward. This is intrinsic motivation, and the external incentive may not be so obvious.
Many educators believe that intrinsic motivation provides greater, more lasting momentum to learn, remember, and use the material studied. The teacher should strive to encourage students to learn for the sake of learning. However, it should also be recognized that students often react positively to some combination of intrinsic motivation and rewards. See also extrinsic motivation. introverted learners: Reserved and reflective students tend to be introverted learners. They enjoy solitary activities, such as worksheets or writing activities. They equally enjoy activities that allow thought and preparation before speaking or interaction, which may be done with worksheets or writing activities. Too much interaction can be overwhelming for these students.
L1: This refers to the student's native language, or "language one."
L2: In ESL EFL teaching, this refers to the English language. It's the second language of the student. learning strategies: Learning strategies refer to the specific thoughts and actions students take for successful learning. The strategy is often dictated by the learning style of the student. An extroverted student, for example, will seek out conversation partners while an introverted student will first analyze the target language and engage in other solitary activities. No one strategy is better overall. See also learning style. learning style: Learning style refers to the general approach that a student takes to acquire new language. This is how he best acquires new information, such as grammar or vocabulary in the language classroom. So a kinesthetic or tactile learner, for example would prefer to participate in activities that involve movement around the classroom. With such activities, these students best remember and reinforce the language. Compare learning strategies, which are closely related. listening: This is one of the four main skills, and is closely linked with speaking. In oral communication, both speaking and listening must be used cooperatively.
418
10. ANNEX
When the teacher opts to focus on listening skills, he may do so with top-down activities or bottom-up activities. Top-down looks general comprehension. Bottom-up looks at sounds to works to grammatical relationships, so may focus on intonation, specific words, grammar structures, etc. See also four skills and speaking. kinesthetic/tactile learners: Learners with this style of learning do well when they stand up and move around. They use their whole body to learn language. Oftentimes, when they remember the language, they go back in their minds to what their body was doing. Flashcards and other realia that assist learning are helpful here. These students don't like to sit in the classroom for long periods, and will simply tune out if forced to do so. meaningful drills: Drills practice newly introduced target language. It goes without saying that a drill must provide challenge and an opportunity to actively think about the material. It must further provide opportunities to gain a level of automaticity and accuracy. When a drill hits all of these points, then it may be considered meaningful.
Compare a drill which is too difficult for the students, or too easy. If too difficult, then students can't use the activity to effectively practice the target language. If too easy, then students simply switch off. See choral drills, interactive drills, and substitution drills. memory-related strategies: These strategies help students remember new information and language. It doesn't necessarily stress full understanding or usage, however. Flashcards, memorization, or activities which link movement with language are all examples of this strategy. metacognitive strategies: This strategy links learning preferences and awareness. Students assess what they like, what they don't like, what works effectively, what works ineffectively, and so on for them as individuals. They then realize that they learn best under these specific conditions. mistakes: A mistake can best be compared to a slip of the tongue. The student produces the language incorrectly, but it's a previously studied grammar structure, phrase, idiom, or word. If pointed out, he'll likely be able to correct the mistake. Compare errors.
419
10. ANNEX
objective: The objective of the lesson deals with a somewhat narrow task or activity the students should accomplish at the end of the lesson. For example, a lesson on the simple past tense is too broad to be considered an objective, as it doesn't give the teacher enough focus. An ideal example has the students focus on a specific aspect of the usage, such as past vacations. This ensures that all subsequent activities and language points taught have a tight and specific focus. See goal and steps. praise: Praise plays an important role in student motivation, as it creates a positive learning environment. It also gives students the chance to understand that they correctly produced the language, met class expectations, and/or improved their language skills. Criticism, an equally important tool, rests on the other side of the spectrum.
Note that the teacher can praise effectively and ineffectively. Effective praise meets the following criteria:
• It's specific and genuine. Compare: "Good job!" and "You've really improved with your /r/ and /l/ sounds!" • It doesn't disrupt the flow of the lesson, or the activity. There are few things worse than interrupting a conversation to give some praise, as students then lose their momentum. The teacher should instead make note of the positive points, and provide a quick feedback session after the activity. • It attributes success to hard work and improvement as opposed to luck. This implies that students will be able to recreate the success in the future. reading: One of the four language skills, reading is an essential component to ultimate fluency. We live in a literate society, and the written word surrounds everywhere.
For reading to best develop, teachers should incorporate writing, speaking, and listening activities. See also four skills, listening, speaking, and writing. role play: A role play is an extremely useful free activity that allows students to apply the target language with other, previously learned material. It has the further benefit of placing that language in a real context, which each individual student can fine tune to his personal life. This makes the language more realistic, and thereby more memorable.
420
10. ANNEX
Don't confuse a role play with a dialogue, though. A dialogue has a set script for students to read from, the purpose of which is to see language in context. A role play doesn't have a script. It instead assigns clear roles, a realistic setting, and an achievable goal for the students.
Let's look at an example. Student A plays the role of a hotel receptionist, and student B wants to make a reservation. The hotel serves as the setting, and the obvious goal has student B make a reservation. You can also work difficulties into the activity, such as a mostly booked hotel, rooms that are too expensive, or a hotel that lost the reservation. See dialogue. scanning: Scanning involves finding specific information during reading, such as names, dates, figures, key vocabulary, or key details. When scanning a document, students don't look to gather the general meaning, and so shouldn't read through the whole test. This technique proves useful when students have to gather or confirm information, either from articles, schedules, or forms. They can then use this information to complete a task or support opinions in a conversation. Compare skimming. self-correction: When a student makes a mistake, he should notice it and rephrase the sentence correctly. For example, he begins with, "I swimmed..." and then after a pause, says, "I swam at the beach last weekend." Self-correction builds confidence. It also encourages students to take responsibility for the language they produce. In addition, if they can catch their mistakes, retention of the language improves. See correction, group correction, student-to-student correction, and teacher-to-student correction. semi-controlled activities: These activities allow less restriction than controlled activities, but still more restriction than free activities. Think of semi-controlled activities as appearing in the middle of the lesson. The teacher has introduced and drilled the target language, yet the students remain unable able to use the new structure and vocabulary in an open-ended discussion or role play.
The term "semi-controlled" comes from the outcome, which remains mostly predictable. For example, students who brainstorm words on favorite foods will produce a list of dishes, even if the answers vary from person to person. In addition to brainstorming, telling a story
421
10. ANNEX
based on a picture, or asking follow-up questions after a conversation prompt are all semi- controlled activities. See controlled activities and free activities.
Silent Way: This method focuses on student discovery, with the teacher taking an almost wholly "hands off" approach. What's more, the teacher remains silent through much of the lesson. He uses colored rods and charts to prompt language production, hence the method's name.
In the Silent Way, students in the classroom work to together to discover the language, while the teacher strictly acts as a guide. The method capitalizes on the principle that students retain information better when they discover it for themselves rather than when simply told. Critics, however, point out that teachers need to be somewhat more involved in the lesson, and aspects of the language can, and should, be told to aid learning.
See also Audiolingual Method, Direct Method, Grammar Translation Method, and Suggestopedia for other methods of language learning. skimming: When skimming a document, students want to understand the broad brush strokes, so to speak. They should note the main idea and purpose of the article or essay, and maybe even some of the supporting ideas. At this stage, detailed information is less important than being able to roughly summarize the material. Compare scanning. social strategies: Students who employ social strategies use social interaction to best understand new language. They will ask questions, confirm information, and use others to bounce ideas off of to gain accuracy/fluency and comprehension skills. speaking: One of the four main skills of English, speaking is closely intertwined with listening. Both are essential for oral communication, and get used more than reading and writing.
When the teacher focuses on communication ability, several factors must be considered in the speaking process. These namely include the ability to begin a conversation, maintain a conversation, take turns speaking, and end a conversation. The ability to interrupt and request clarification also proves important, as does the balance between accuracy and fluency. At higher ability levels, the teacher must also consider the ability to elaborate
422
10. ANNEX
ideas, explain around unknown vocabulary, link sentences and ideas together into paragraph-long discourse, and adjust the formality of the language to suit the situation. See four skills, listening, reading, and writing. speaking strategies: Speaking strategies aid in accomplishing the goals of oral communication. Strategies include, but aren't limited to:
• Adjusting the rate of speech, intonation, or formality when speaking. • Asking for clarification, or confirming information. • Paraphrasing around unknown vocabulary, grammar, or sentence structures. • Providing conversation cues, such as "Uh huh," "Yeah," or "I see." • Using fillers to pause between thoughts or ideas. • Using set phrases and idioms.
SQ3R: This reading technique asks the reader to survey the material, question it, then read, recite and review it. When surveying an article, the student should skim the text for the main idea. This may mean looking at the title, bulleted headings or subheadings, and charts, graphs, or illustrations. He then asks questions about the information noticed, such as "What will be covered in each section?" or "How does this graph tie into the material at hand?" Next he conducts a more thorough reading. He should answer the questions previously generated, as well as formulate any new questions, if necessary. The student then recites, or repeats, the important information from memory, either as a written or oral activity that makes use of the material. Last comes review. The students should look over the material, try once again to answer the questions generated earlier in the technique, and tie it to other ideas and concepts. steps: Steps are the structure used to teach the language. For example, in a lesson past vacations, the teacher might introduce and practice:
Step One: Vacation-related verbs, plus past tense conjugations. Step Two: Vocabulary in context Step Three: Question sentences to talk about past vacations Step Four: Dialogue to show the language in a conversation Step Five: Interview/discussion about past vacations
423
10. ANNEX
Working through steps ensures that each step builds on previous steps. Time doesn't get wasted with target language that the students don't subsequently use. The teacher still remains free to add or take away drills or additional activities too. A class of weaker students can still get extra time to practice the language, while a class of stronger students can move on. See also goal and objective. student talk time (STT): How much do students talk in the class? Apart from listening activities, or when the teacher is presenting the target language, students should spend 70% of a conversation-based class speaking. Activities that promote pair work and group work help achieve this 70% figure. Teachers should also consider effective talk time, in which as many students as possible are talking in pairs or groups at the same time. Compare twenty students having a discussion in pairs versus twenty students speaking one at a time, which results in ineffective talk time. See effective talk time and TTT (teacher talk time). student-to-student correction: Students work in pairs, note one another's mistakes during a conversation, and provide one-to-one correction. This type of correction encourages student talk time, and also fosters a supportive classroom atmosphere. There is always the chance, though, that some mistakes will go unnoticed, and uncorrected. Students may also mistakenly point out a phrase, grammar point, or word they believe to be wrong, but which is actually fine. See correction, group correction, and teacher-to- student correction. substitution drills: Substitution drills require the students to plug a vocabulary word or phrase into a sentence, conjugate a verb tense, or otherwise substitute one language part with another. For example:
Teacher: (holds up a flashcard of a pizza) Students: I eat pizza every day. Teacher: (holds up a flashcard of a coffee) Students: I drink coffee every day.
See also choral drills, interactive drills, and meaning drills.
424
10. ANNEX
Suggestopedia: Suggestopedia focuses on music and relaxation as a means for students to memorize new material. During the lesson, in which students sit in comfortable chairs, Baroque music plays in the background. The teacher, who is in control, introduces the grammar and vocabulary, reads passages of dialogue or text, and then finish with role plays, songs, or games.
Suggestopedia didn't quite live up to the claims its founder, Georgi Lozanov, made in the 1970s. However, the method should be noted for revealing how a positive, relaxed atmosphere proves conducive to learning. See Audiolingual Method, Direct Method, and Grammar Translation Method, and Silent Way. task-based instruction: Task-based instruction focuses on how the language will ultimately be used. This shouldn't be confused with a task in a lesson, such as one teacher sets for an activity. Instead, a lesson might be structured around the task of giving personal information for a job interview, or requesting information from a travel agent. In other words, the teacher structures lessons around real world application. Compare content-based instruction and theme-based instruction. teacher-to-student correction: The teacher directly corrects any mistakes or errors produced by the students. On the positive side, explanations will almost always be clear, supported by examples, and correct. This type of correction is also needed when first presenting new material because the students don't yet have the ability to notice mistakes.
On the negative side, especially when overly used, teacher-to-student correction creates a teacher-centered classroom, prevents the students from noticing their own mistakes, negatively affects confidence, and lowers retention of the target language. See correction, group correction, and student-to-student correction. teacher talk time (TTT): With the exception of presenting the target language, reading a text for listening, or offering correction and feedback, a teacher should strive to speak only 30% of a conversation-based class. This ensures that the greater bulk of the lesson allows students to acquire and practice new material. See effective talk time and student talk time (STT).
425
10. ANNEX
theme-based instruction: Theme-based instruction appears very similar to content-based instruction. Both classes get structured around themes or topics, such as current events. Both may use video, radio broadcasts, or newspaper articles, and may have students watch, listen, discuss, or write about the topic. But theme-based lessons give equal consideration to language skills and the material. Students take the course or class with the primary purpose of improving their English ability, conducted through topics. See content- based instruction and task-based instruction. thinking learners: Thinking learners prefer facts. They also prefer to be seen as competent, so poor performance or embarrassment can lead to problems in the classroom. Thinking learners attach self-esteem to achievement, so will often have the self-discipline for study and self-direction. top-down processing: This term involves the knowledge and information students bring to a text, which they either listen to or read. Top-down processing looks to activate this information, so students will work towards understanding the big picture. Activities that focus on top-down processing may ask students to identify the speaker (or writer), the purpose and theme of the piece, and main or supporting ideas. Compare bottom-up processing. visual learners: This is a learning style in which the students prefer written instructions, diagrams on the board, and pictures. They often learn by observing. They benefit a great deal by reading, video, and other forms of visual stimulation. warm up: The first ten minutes sets the tone of the lesson. A fun activity gets everyone relaxed and participating. Compare a difficult, writing-based activity, which may discourage students, as well as lower their confidence, resulting in a less participatory class later in the lesson.
But a warm up also gets students thinking in English. In EFL classes, the lesson may be their only contact with the language. They haven't spoken English in a few days or longer, so they need the first ten minutes to get into "English mode." Even in an ESL setting, though, it helps get students focused on the topic of the lesson.
426
10. ANNEX
Lastly, the first ten minutes allows the teacher to observe everyone in class and note the general mood of the students. Are they tired? Or distracted? Or unbelievably energetic? The teacher can also see who is and who isn't working well together, which will later play a role in who gets paired up with whom. writing: This is one of the four skills. There are many forms of writing, such as academic, informative, writing to meet business needs, just to name a few. As such, it should be viewed as more than the ability to write sentences, as ideas must be connected into a larger framework. See also four skills and reading.
427
ANNEX VIII
Didactics of the English Language in Preschool Education course bibliography
10. ANNEX
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CURRENT LEGISLATION ●Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación; modificada parcialmente por:
PRESCHOOL EDUCATION ●Real Decreto 1630/2006, de 29 de diciembre, por el que se establecen las enseñanzas mínimas del Segundo ciclo de Educación Infantil.
●Decreto 38/2008, de 28 de marzo, del Consell, por el que se establece el currículo del Segundo ciclo de la Educación Infantil en la Comunitat Valenciana.
●Orden de 24 de junio 2008, de la conselleria de Educación, sobre la evaluación en la etapa de Educación Infantil.
METHODOLOGY ●Asher, J. (1979). Learning Another Language through Actions: The Complete Teacher's Guidebook. Los Gatos, California: Sky Oaks Publications.
●Bazo, P., Hernández, M. R. & Peñate, M. (1994). Think in English: actividades para globalizer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
●Hardfiel, J. (1987). Elementary Communication Games. Nelson/Longman.
●Harmer, J. (2001).The practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.
●Haycraft, J. (1978). An introduction to English language Teaching. London: Longman.
●Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
●Phillips, S. (1993). Young Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
●Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. A description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
●Wright, A. (2006). Games for Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
STORYTELLING ●Wright, A. (1997). Creating Stories with children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
431
10. ANNEX
●Wright, A. (1995).Storytelling with Children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DRAMA ●Graham, (1978). Jazz Chants for Children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
●Toth, M. (1995). Children’s Games. London: Heinemann.
SONGS ●Beck, I. &King, K. (1985).Oranges and Lemons: Singing and Dancing Games. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
●Supers Songs (1997). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
●Byrne, J. &Waugh, A. (1982).Jingle Bells and Other Songs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FESTIVALS AND TRADITIONS ●Clemen, G. D.B. (2014). British and American Festivities. Vicens Vives.
●Crowther, J. (2005). Oxford Guide to British and American Culture (New Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
432