Evaluación de la enseñanza bilingüe en las clases de Educación Física AICLE y su repercusión en el tiempo de compromiso motor

Resumen

Introduction: In recent years, at the behest of the European Union, language learning has been promoted with the aim of creating and fostering a real union among the countries that make it up. Various measures have been adopted by the different countries to achieve this. In Spain, the introduction of the foreign language as a means of learning other subjects has been chosen, without knowing the repercussions that this could have. For this reason, we wonder, on the one hand, if the introduction of bilingualism in Physical Education classes is affecting the Engagement Motor Time (EMT) of our students and, on the other hand, if this bilingual methodology, in our case CLIL, is being implemented correctly. Objective: To analyze the relationship between the introduction of bilingual programs and the Engagement Motor Time in Physical Education classes, as well as to know if the implementation of such programs is being correct according to their characteristics. Results: Statistical analyses showed that: A) The recommendations of at least 50% of EMT indicated by the Association for Physical Education (2020), DHHS (2010), MECD (2014) and NASPE (2015) are not met. B) There are significant differences in engagement motor time (EMT), organization time (TO) and time spent on task (TT) between bilingual and monolingual PE sessions. C) There are no differences in actual session time (SRT) between bilingual and monolingual PE. D) The Evaluation of Physical Education Sessions through CLIL questionnaire (CESEFA) is the first specific tool for PE sessions, created after a rigorous process of construction and validation, making it a valid and reliable instrument to be used in other contexts. E) The implementation of CLIL in the PE sessions should be improved considerably since it presents relatively low values. F) Three teacher profiles have been found when introducing CLIL in PE, the first of which focuses primarily on PE and to a lesser extent on language, a second case that focuses more on the language than on the content of PE and, finally, those who are able to find a balance between content and language. G) The way CLIL is implemented in the PE sessions affects the EMT to a greater or lesser extent, as well as the rest of the time categories. H) Continuous training for teacher should be promoted in this area. Conclusions: Given the negative relationship between the introduction of a new language and EMT in the PE sessions, there is a need to raise awareness among specialist PE teachers of the importance of EMT so that the subject is not distorted. In addition, it should contribute to achieving the physical activity recommendations and offer the possibility of creating in students the habit and enthusiasm for practicing PA in the present and in the future.