Parent Perspectives on CLIL ImplementationWhich Variables Make a Difference?

  1. Juan Ráez-Padilla 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Jaén
    info

    Universidad de Jaén

    Jaén, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0122p5f64

Revista:
Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

ISSN: 1697-7467

Año de publicación: 2018

Número: 29

Páginas: 181-196

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.30827/DIGIBUG.54033 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

El presente artículo sondea el punto de vista de los padres en relación con el desarrollo de programas AICLE. Para ello, se han aplicado cuestionarios a 237 padres en las provincias andaluzas occidentales de Cádiz y Málaga con el objetivo de llevar a cabo un análisis exhaustivo de su opinión sobre la implementación de programas AICLE. Tras inscribir el estudio en el marco de investigaciones previas y justificar la necesidad de investigaciones de esta naturaleza, en el artículo se expone el diseño de investigación llevado a cabo y se resumen sus principales hallazgos en relación con siete campos de interés sondeados: el desarrollo de la competencia L2, metodología, materiales y recursos, evaluación, formación e información, movilidad y mejora y motivación en inglés, incluyendo una valoración global de programas bilingües. Se proporciona asimismo un diagnóstico detallado sobre el lugar donde nos encontramos en relación con este proceso de implementación de pedagogías AICLE, y se establecen comparaciones dentro de la cohorte considerando una serie de variables.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, under Grant FFI2012-32221, and by the Junta de Andalucía, under Grant P12-HUM-23480.

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Banegas, D. L. (2012). “CLIL teacher development: Challenges and experiences”, in Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 5, 1: 46-56.
  • Breidbach, S. and Viebrock, B. (2012). “CLIL in Germany: Results from recent research in a contested field of education”, in International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 4: 5-16.
  • Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bruton, A. (2011). “Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research”, in System, 39: 523-532.
  • Bruton, A. (2013). “CLIL: Some of the reasons why ... and why not”, in System, 41: 587-597.
  • Brüning, C. I. and Purrmann, M. S. (2014). “CLIL pedagogy in Europe: CLIL teacher education in Germany”, in Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication, 27: 315-338.
  • Cabezas Cabello, J. M. (2010). “A SWOT analysis of the Andalusian Plurilingualism Promotion Plan (APPP)”, in M. L. Pérez Cañado (ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd GRETA Convention. Jaén: Joxman, 83-91.
  • Casal, S. and Moore, P. (2008). “The Andalusian bilingual sections scheme: Evaluation and consultancy”, in International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 1: 36-46.
  • Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. and Gorter, D. (2013). “Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward”, in Applied Linguistics, 2013: 1-21.
  • Coyle, D. (2010). “Foreword”. In D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, vii-viii.
  • Cummins, J. (2000). Immersion education for the millennium: What we have learned from 30 years of research on second language immersion. Available from <http://www.iteachilearn. com/cummins/immersion2000.html>. [Accessed 01/06/2017].
  • Czura, A. and Papaja, K. (2013). “Curricular models of CLIL education in Poland”, in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 3: 321-333.
  • Denzin, N. K. (ed.) (1970). Sociological methods: A source book. Chicago: Aldine.
  • Jäppinen, A. K. (2006). “CLIL and future learning”, in S. Björklund, K. Mård-Miettinen, M. Bergström and M. Södergård (eds.), Exploring dual-focussed education. Integrating language and content for individual and societal needs, Available from <http://www.uwasa. fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_952-476-149-1.pdf>. [Accessed 01/06/2017].
  • Junta de Andalucía (2005). Plan de Fomento del Plurilingüismo en Andalucía [Andalusian Plan for the Promotion of Plurilingualism]. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía. Available from <http:// www.juntadeandalucia.es/boja/boletines/2005/65/d/5.html> [Accessed 01/06/2017].
  • Junta de Andalucía (2017). Plan Estratégico de Desarrollo de las Lenguas en Andalucía [Strategic Plan for the Development of Languages in Andalusia]. Available from <http://www. juntadeandalucia.es/educacion/webportal/abaco-portlet/content/462f16e3-c047-479f-a7531030bf16f822> [Accessed 01/06/2017].
  • Lancaster, N. (2016). “Stakeholder perspectives on CLIL in a monolingual context”, in English Language Teaching, 9, 2: 148-177.
  • Lasagabaster, D. and Doiz, A. (2016). “CLIL students’ perceptions of their language learning process: Delving into self-perceived improvement and instructional preferences”, in Language Awareness, 25, 1-2: 110-126.
  • Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The state of ELT and the way forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
  • Liberali, F. (2013). “Student-teachers and teacher-educators experience new roles in pre-service bilingual teacher education in Brazil”, in C. Abello-Contesse, P. M. Chandler, M. D. López-Jiménez and R. Chacón-Beltrán (eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century. Building on experience. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 231-255.
  • Lorenzo, F. (2007). “The sociolinguistics of CLIL: Language planning and language change in 21st century Europe”, in RESLA, 1: 27-38.
  • Lorenzo, F. (2010). “CLIL in Andalusia”. In D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2-11.
  • Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. and Moore, P. (2009). “The effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project”, in Applied Linguistics, 31, 3: 418-442.
  • Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., Moore, P. and Afonso, Y. M. (2009). Bilingüismo y educación. Situación de la red de centros bilingües en Andalucía. Sevilla: Fundación Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
  • Marsh, D., Maljers, A. and Hartiala, A. K. (2001). Profiling European CLIL classrooms. Languages open doors. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
  • Marsh, D. (2015). “Postscript”. In D. Marsh, M. L. Pérez Cañado and J. Ráez Padilla (eds.), CLIL in action: Voices from the classroom. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 188-191.
  • Mehisto, P. and Asser, H. (2007). “Stakeholder perspectives: CLIL programme management in Estonia”, in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 5: 683-701.
  • Michavila, F. (2009). “Preface”, in M. L. Pérez Cañado (ed.), English language teaching in the European Credit Transfer System: Facing the challenge. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 9-16.
  • Paran, A. (2013). “Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth?”, in Applied Linguistics Review, 4, 2: 317-342.
  • Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. London: Sage.
  • Pavón Vázquez, V. and Rubio, F. (2010). “Teachers’ concerns and uncertainties about the introduction of CLIL programmes”, in Porta Linguarum, 14: 45-58.
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). “CLIL research in Europe: Past, present and future”, in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 3: 315-341.
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2015). “Training teachers for plurilingual education: A Spanish case study”, in D. Marsh, M. L. Pérez Cañado and J. Ráez Padilla (eds.), CLIL in action: Voices from the classroom. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 165-187.
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016a). “Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European study”, in European Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 2: 202-221.
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016b). “Evaluating CLIL programmes: Instrument design and validation”, in Pulso. Revista de Educación, 39: 79-112.
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016c). “Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-service teacher perceptions”, in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19, 3: 266-295.
  • Tobin, N. A. and Abello-Contesse, C. (2013). “The use of native assistants as language and cultural resources in Andalusia’s bilingual schools”, in in C. Abello-Contesse, P. M. Chandler, M. D. López-Jiménez and R. Chacón-Beltrán (eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century. Building on experience. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 231-255.
  • Wolff, D. (2002). “On the importance of CLIL in the context of the debate on plurilingual education in the European Union”, in D. Marsh (ed.), CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension. Actions, trends, and foresight potential. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, 47-48.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet